SUNIL AGARWAL,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 988/Del/2018 Assessment Year : 2008-09 SUNIL AGARWAL, Vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR LAXMI NIWAS, NEAR POST OFFICE, KANKHAL, HARIDWAR UTTARAKHAND (PAN: AANPA0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, Adv. Department by : Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR.

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed

by the Ld. CIT(A), Hladwani on 16.11.2017 in relation to the assessment

year 2008-09 on the following grounds:-

Haldwani has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the

initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and,

completion of assessment uls 1471143(3) of the Act which

were without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed as such.

1.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

has failed to appreciate that, there was no tangible, relevant,

specific and reliable material on record on the basis of which, it

could be held that, there was any reason to believe with the

learned Assessing Officer that income of the appellant had

escaped assessment and, in view thereof, the proceedings

initiated were illegal, untenable and therefore, unsustainable.

1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

has further failed to appreciate that since there was no allegation

in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the

assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary

for assessment uls 147 of the Act, the notice issued u/s 148 of

the Act after a period of four years from the end of assessment

year in a case where original assessment has been framed uls

143(3) of the Act was illegal and invalid.

1.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

has also failed to appreciate that approval granted was a

mechanical approval and hence initiation of proceedings uls 147

of the Act on this ground is invalid.

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

has further erred-both in law and on facts in upholding an

addition of Rs. 95,25,000/- representing alleged

undisclosed/unexplained investment made by the appellant and

brought to tax by invoking section 69B of the Act.

2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding

an addition on the basis of search and seizure operation u/s 132

of the Act in the group of M/s Kanatal Resorts no 22/23/92012,

whereby basis of seized laptop of Shri Deepak Mittal without

appreciating that such evidence neither in law and nor on fact

cold have been made a basis to assume that the land purchased

by Shri Ganga Ram Adwani alongwith appellant was not Rs.

15,50,000/- allegedly purchased for Rs. 2,06,00,000/- in which

share of appellant comes to Rs. 1,03,00,000/- being half share

in purchasing 0.3480 hectare land represented undisclosed

income of the appellant.

2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

has further erred both in law and on facts in overlooking the

documentary evidence placed on record to establish that the

purchase consideration of Rs. 15,50,000/- was the actual sum

invested by the appellant.

2.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

and the learned Income Tax Officer has erred both in law and on

facts in invoking the provision contained in section 292C of the

Act which are wholly inapplicable to the facts of the appellant.

2.4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

while upholding the addition has overlooked documentary

evidence placed on record by the appellant to show that the

investment made by the assessee was duly explained out of the

funds available with the appellant and therefore, addition

sustained is not in accordance with law.

2.5 That finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) that, "thus, prima facie, it was evidently established

that the assessee alongwith Shri Ganga Ram Adwani had paid of

Rs. 95,25,000/- over and above the registered amount as

undisclosed investment of the assessee which was out of his

undisclosed income" is factually incorrect and hence not tenable.

2.6 That further finding of the learned Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) that "further the appellant has not

substantiated his claim that he had asked for cross examination

which was denied by the AO" is factually incorrect and contrary

to record, legally misconceived and untenable.

2.7 That various adverse findings and conclusion recorded by

the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are also

factually incorrect, contrary to record, legally misconceived and

untenable.

order without granting sufficient proper opportunity to the

appellant and therefore the same are contrary to principle of

natural justice and hence vitiated.

has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of

interest under section 234 B of the Act which is not leviable on

the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.

It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made

by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserves to be quashed

as such. It be further held addition made and upheld by the

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alongwith

interest levied be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed.

electronically on 28.6.2008 declaring income of Rs. 13,14,870/-. The case

of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on 19.01.2010 on returned income.

After recording reason for initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the act,

notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 6.8.2009. The assessment was

completed u/s. 143/(147) of the Act on 30.12.2010 at returned income.

Subsequently, it came to notice that the assessee has purchased farm

house land at Jwalapur, Haridwar jointly with Sh. Ganga Ram Adwani, R/o

Rishikesh (being 50% share of each), for total consideration of Rs. 2.06

crore from Sh. Ashwani Kumar, S/o Sh. Shanta Prasad, R/o Nath House,

haridwar as Karta of M/s Ashwani Kumar Mittal & Sons (HUF), for which

excess money over and above the amount mentioned in the registered deed

has been paid by the purchasers. The assessee has disclosed purchase

consideration of Rs. 7,75,000/- in the computation filed alongwith the

return of income for AY 2008-09 being 50% of the purchase price of the said

farm house land as per registered deed dated 11.4.2007 for Rs. 15,50,000.

Accordingly, proceedings under section 147 were initiated to assess the

undisclosed amount of investment made in purchase of the said property.

Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.3.2015

after recording proper reasons for doing so and after taking prior approval of

CIT, Dehradun. In response to this notice, the assessee vide letter dated

6.4.2015 that his return of income filed for AY 2008-09 on 28.6.2008 may

kindly be treated as filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated

31.3.2015. Notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire

were issued on 17.8.2015. In response to these notices, the assessee

alongwith his AR attended the assessment proceedings and furnished

requisite details. During the search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 in the group of M/s Kanatal Resorts on 22/23.9.2011,

laptop of Sh. Deepak Mittal was seized. In the laptop, the account

annexurised as page 27 of A-2 contains that land measuring 0.5480

hectares (8 bighas) situated at Jwalapur, Haridwar known as farm house

land was sold by Ashwani Kumar Mittal and Sons (HUF), which was

purchased vide sale deed dated 11.4.2007, jointly by the assessee and Sh.

Ganga Ram Adwani, having equal shares, for Rs. 15,50,000/-. The sale deed

for entire land was made at Rs. 15,50,000/-, but in actual the above land

was sold for Rs. 2,06,00,000/-. The sale deed of this land was also found

and seized at the time of search and was annexurised as A-11 pg. 143. Sh.

Deepak Mittal and Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mittal in their statements recorded

u/s. 132(4) on 23.9.2011 have stated that the farm house land situated at

Jwalapur, Haridwar was sold for total consideration of Rs. 2.06 crores in AY

2008-09 including cash received from the purchasers over and above the

amount mentioned in the registered deed dated 11.4.2007. from these

facts, it is clelary evidence that the assessee has jointly purchased half share

of land measuring 0.5480 hectares at Jwalapur, Haridwar for Rs.

2,06,00,000/-, whereas as per sale deed dated 11.4.2007, purchase amount

has been shown at Rs. 15,50,000/- only. This way, half share of the

assessee comes to Rs. 1,03,00,000/- as against Rs. 7,75,000/- shown in the

registered sale deed. AO observed that prima facie, it is clearly evident that

the assessee has paid Rs. 95,25,000/- on and above the registered amount.

On this basis, reasons to believe that an income to the extent of Rs.

92,25,000/- has escaped assessment and accordingly, notice u/s. 142(1)

dated 17.8.2015 was issued, to explain that on the basis of seized

documents from Sh. Deepak Mittal during the course of search and seizure

operation on 22.9.2011 and as accepted by Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mittal, why

the purchase of land be not taken at Rs. 2.06 crores in respect of land

purchased jointly with Sh. Ganga Ram Advani and accordingly, unexplained

investment be not calculated. In response thereto, the assessee filed his

reply dated 02.11.2015. After considering the reply filed by the assessee,

the AO observed that the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated on

the basis of transactions relating to the property purchased by the assessee

from the sellers in whose premises information / documents showing

underhand payments in respect of such property, was found and seized

during the course of search oration at the premises of the sellers and

contents of the seized documents were confronted in the statement recorded

u/s. 132(4) of the seller of the said property, which has evidential value

within the meanings of section 132(4A) read with section 292C of the I.T.

Act, 1961. Thus, the AO observed that the arguments put forth in the

written submissions dated 2.11.2015 and 10.3.2016 have no credence.

Therefore, the AO held that assessee alongwith Sh. Ganga Ram Adwani got

registered a purchase deed for Rs. 15,50,000/-, which was actually

purchased for Rs. 2,06,00,000/-, in which share of the assessee comes to

Rs. 1,03,00,000/- being half share. Thus, AO observed that it is clear that

the assessee has made undisclosed investment of Rs. 95,25,000/- as his

share in purchasing 0.5480 hectare land at village Jwalapur, District

Haridwar on 11.4.2007. Accordingly, undisclosed investment made by the

assessee amounting to Rs. 95,25,000/- was added to the total income of the

assessee under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated

30.3.2016 passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated

16.11.2017 has affirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of

the assessee.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani has erred both in law and

on facts in sustaining the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the

Act and, completion of assessment uls 147/143(3) of the Act which were

without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed, because there was no

tangible, relevant, specific and reliable material on record on the basis of

which, it could be held that, there was any reason to believe with the

Assessing Officer that income of the assessee had escaped assessment and, 9

in view thereof, the proceedings initiated were illegal, untenable and

therefore, unsustainable. He draw our attention towards page no. 26-PB

which is copy of reasons recorded in the first round and page no. 32-PB

which is a copy of reasons recorded in the second round and stated that

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to

appreciate that since there was no allegation in the reasons recorded that

there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all

material facts necessary for assessment uls 147 of the Act, the notice issued

u/s 148 of the Act after a period of four years from the end of assessment

year in a case where original assessment has been framed uls 143(3) of the

Act was illegal and invalid. It was further contended that learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also failed to appreciate that

approval granted was a mechanical approval and hence initiation of

proceedings uls 147 of the Act on this ground is invalid. In view of above,

he requested to quash the reassessment. To support his contention, Ld.

Counsel of the assessee has filed two Paper Books one is containing the

containing pages 1 to 136 in which records at the stage assessment as

well as appellate were available and in the second paper book which is

containing pages 137 to 360 having the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India; Hon’ble High Courts and the Tribunal by which the legal

issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered. The following are the case

laws on which the Assessee’s counsel relied.

in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. SP Chalitha and

others reported in 79 ITR 603 (SC).

in the case of CIT, Calcutta vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd.

reported in 79 ITR 609 (SC).

in the case of ITO and others vs. Lakhmani Mewal

Das reported in 103 ITR 437(SC);

in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT

reported in 125 ITR 713.

Narasamma vs. ITO in 32 ITD 494 (Hyd.).

the case of Mcdermott International Inc. vs. ACIT

and others reported in 259 ITR 138.

case of CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram reported in 294

ITR 49.

Optec Disc. Manufacturing reported in 11 DTR 0264

(Chand).

the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs.

CIT and others reported in 308 ITR 38 (Del).

case of DCIT vs. Gujarqat Ambuja Cements Ltd.

reported in 57 DTR 0179.

case of Signatures Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported

in 338 ITR 51;

the case of Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT

reported in 343 ITR 183.

case of CIT vs. Viniyas Finance and Investment Pvt.

Ltd. reported in 357 ITR 646 (Del.)

case of CIT vs. Living Media India Ltd. reported in

359 ITR 106.

of Pr. CIT vs. NC Cables Ltd. in ITA No. 335/2015.

in the case of Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. vs.

ACIT reported 400 ITR 397.

the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in

268 ITR 332 and

Singh. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1081/Del/2017.

and stated that Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s. 148 after due

application of mind. Hhe further stated that the AO has followed due

procedure before issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The

Assessing Officer had tangible material in the form of information received

from the Investigation Wing. The Assessing Officer did not proceed to any

hearsay, conjecture or surmises. He stated that following decisions may be

kindly considered with regard to reopening of case beyond 4 years u/s. 147

of the I.T. Act:

“1. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20

taxmann.com 5 (SC)/[2012] 206 Taxman 33

(SC)(MAG.)/[2012] 340 ITR 64 (SC)/[2012] 247 CTR 316

(SC) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that assessee

having not pointed out during assessment proceedings

about expenses incurred relatable to tax free income u/s

14A there was omission and failure on its part to disclose

fully and truly material facts and hence reopening of

assessment was justified

taxmann.com 2 (Delhi)/[2011] 197 Taxman 415

(Delhi)/[2012] 340 ITR 53 (Delhi)/[2012] 247 CTR 322

(Delhi) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that assessee

having not pointed out during assessment proceedings

about expenses incurred relatable to tax free income u/s

14A there was omission and failure on its part to disclose

fully and truly material facts and hence reopening of

assessment was justified

taxmann.com 136 (Delhi) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court

held that proceedings under section 147, beyond a period

of 4 years can only be initiated if the Assessing Officer has

reason to believe that there has been escapement of

income and this escapement is owing to the lack of true

and fair disclosure by the assessee. In this regard, it is

essential to understand the meaning of the phrase 'true

and fair disclosure'. The Court has considered the meaning

of this phrase in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

[2012] 340 ITR 53/[2011] 197 Taxman 415/10

taxmann.com 2 (Delhi) where the Court held that that the

term 'failure' on the part of the assessee is not restricted

to the return and the columns of the return or the tax

audit report. There can be omission and failure on the part

of Hie assessee to disclose material facts fairly and truly

during the course of the assessment proceedings. [Para

42]

294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538

(SC) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Audit party

had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked

by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information

on a question of law. Reopening of case under section

147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal

audit party was valid in law.

taxmann.com 116 (Gujarat)/[2014] 221 Taxman 19

(Gujarat)(MAG.) where Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held

that Assessment without scrutiny would mandate

reassessment beyond 4 years even if assessee made true

disclosure.

[2012] 346 ITR 228 (Gun The assessee had shown an

amount as loan from company. The assessee had not

disclosed that it had substantial interest in the company.

Reassessment proceedings after four years to assess

amount as deemed dividend was held to be valid.”

laws and the relevant documents available on record. We note that in this

case return of income declaring income at Rs. 13,14,870/- was filed by the

assessee on 26.8.2008 and which was processed on 19.1.2010 u/s. 143(1) of the Act (Page 1-5 of Paper Book). It is noted that in the 1st round of

proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, a notice dated 6.8.2009 u/s. 148 (Pg. 6-PB)

of the Act and further questionnaire dated 8.11.2010 was issued and reply

thereof was furnished by the assessee on 18.11.2010. After considering the

same, the AO passed the order dated 30.12.2010 u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act. Thereafter, in the 2nd round of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act again

notice dated 13.3.2015 u/s. 148 of the Act was issued (Page. 23-PB)

wherein it was stated that notice is being issued with the prior approval of

the JCIT, Haridwar Range, Haridwar. We note that the AO while recording

the reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment has recorded

the reasons as under:-

“Reasons for initiating proceedings u/s. 148/151 and for

obtaining the approval of the Jt. /Addl. Commissioner of Income

Tax/ Commissioner of Income Tax/ CBDT.

1 Name and address of the Sh. Sunil Agarwal assessee Sh. Balaji Complex, Ranipur More, Haridwar 2 Permanent Account No. AANPA0687L 3 Status Individual 4 District/circle/Range Ward 3, Haridwar 5 Assessment year in respect of 2008-09 which it is proposed to be issued notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act. 6. The quantum of income which Rs. 95,25,000/- has escaped assessment 7. Whether the clauses (a), (b) Clause (b) of the or (c) of the explanation 2 to explanation 2 to the the second proviso of section second proviso of section 147 are applicable. 147 is applicable.

8 Whether the assessment is Yes proposed to be made for the first time? If reply is in affirmative, please state: (a) whether any voluntary Yes. Returned income Rs. return had already been filed. 13,14,873/-. (b) if so, the date of filing the 28.6.2008 said return. 9. If the answer to item 8 is in negative, please state (a) The income originally NA assessed (b) Whether it is a case NA of under assessment, assessment at too low a rate which has been made the subject of excessive relied or allowing excessive loss or depreciation 10 Whether the provisions of No. section 150(1) are applying. If the rely is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against item no. 11 and it may also be brought out that the provisions of section 150(2) would not stand in the way of initiating proceedings u/s. 147. 11. Reasons for the belief that Information received from income has escaped DCIT, Central Circle, assessment. Dehradun that a search was conducted on 22.9.2011 laptop of sh. Ashwani Kumar Mittal was seized. The laptop contains details of sale of 8 bighas of land @ 25.75 lacs per bigha to Sh. Gnga Ram Adwani and Sh. Sunil Kumar Agarwal which 18

comes to Rs. 2.06 crore. Sunil Agarwal’s share comes to Rs. 1.03 crore. Sale deed of this land was made for Rs. 15.50 lacs in which his share comes to Rs. 7.75 lacs. Rs. 95.25 lacs was paid over and above the amount shown in the sale / purchase deed made on 5.4.2007. I have therefore, reasons to believe that Rs. 95.25 lacs escaped assessment.

Dated: 23.03.2015 Sd/- (Dileep Kumar) Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Haridwar 12. Whether the Addl./ JCIT CIT is satisfied Yes, in view of reasons on the reasons recorded by the AO that it recorded by AO I am is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 of satisfied that this is a the I.T. Act, 1961 fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148.

Dated: 24.03.2015 Sd/- (Gaya Prasad) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Haridwar Range, Hardiwar”

Thereafter, in the 3rd round of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act again 6.1

notice dated 31.3.2015 u/s. 148 of the Act was issued (Page. 29-PB)

wherein it was stated that notice is being issued with the prior approval of 19

the JCIT, Haridwar Range, Haridwar. We note that the AO while recording

the reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment has recorded

the reasons as under:-

“Reasons for initiating proceedings u/s. 148/151 and for

obtaining the approval of the Jt. /Addl. Commissioner of Income

Tax/ Commissioner of Income Tax/ CBDT.

1 Name and address of the Sh. Sunil Agarwal assessee Sh. Balaji Complex, Ranipur More, Haridwar 2 Permanent Account No. AANPA0687L 3 Status Individual 4 District/circle/Range Ward 3, Haridwar 5 Assessment year in respect of 2008-09 which it is proposed to be issued notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act. 6. The quantum of income which Rs. 95,25,000/- has escaped assessment 7. Whether the clauses (a), (b) Clause (b) of the or (c) of the explanation 2 to explanation 2 to the the second proviso of section second proviso of section 147 are applicable. 147 is applicable. 8 Whether the assessment is No proposed to be made for the first time? If reply is in affirmative, please state: (a) whether any voluntary return had already been filed. (b) if so, the date of filing the said return. 9. If the answer to item 8 is in negative, please state (a) The income originally Rs. 13,14,870/- assessed (b) Whether it is a case Under assessment of under assessment,

assessment at too low a rate which has been made the subject of excessive relied or allowing excessive loss or depreciation 10 Whether the provisions of No. section 150(1) are applying. If the rely is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against item no. 11 and it may also be brought out that the provisions of section 150(2) would not stand in the way of initiating proceedings u/s. 147. 11. Reasons for the belief that Information received from income has escaped DCIT, Central Circle, assessment. Dehradun that a search was conducted on 22.9.2011 laptop of sh. Ashwani Kumar Mittal was seized. The laptop contains details of sale of 8 bighas of land @ 25.75 lacs per bigha to Sh. Gnga Ram Adwani and Sh. Sunil Kumar Agarwal which comes to Rs. 2.06 crore. Sunil Agarwal’s share comes to Rs. 1.03 crore. Sale deed of this land was made for Rs. 15.50 lacs in which his share comes to Rs. 7.75 lacs. Rs. 95.25 lacs was paid over and above the amount shown in the sale / purchase deed made on 5.4.2007. I have therefore, reasons to believe that Rs. 95.25 lacs escaped assessment. 21

Dated: 31.03.2015 Sd/- (Dileep Kumar) Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Haridwar 12. Whether the Addl./ JCIT CIT is satisfied Yes, in view of reasons on the reasons recorded by the AO that it recorded by AO I am is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 of satisfied that this is a the I.T. Act, 1961 fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148.

Dated: 31.03.2015 Sd/- (Gaya Prasad) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Haridwar Range, Hardiwar”

Yes, I am satisfied.

Dated: 31.03.2015 Sd/- Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun” 6.1 After perusing the aforesaid reasons recorded, we find that there is

no allegation in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the

assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for

assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act after a 22

period of four years from end of assessment year in case where assessment

has been framed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act is illegal and invalid. The case

law relied by the Ld.DR are on distinguished facts. Our aforesaid view is

fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.

Viniyas Finance and Investment (P) Ltd. wherein the Hon’ble has held as

under:-

"7. On going through the purported reasons we find that

there is no mention of the respondent-assessee not having

made a full and true disclosure of the material facts

necessary for assessment. On the contrary the purported

reasons indicate that the amounts mentioned therein had

been shown in the books of accounts as receipts from the

companies mentioned therein. We also note that at serial

No.5 of the list of companies from which amounts have

been allegedly received, the name of the assessee has

been shown. This means that the assessee received the

received money from itself, which can hardly be an

allegation in this case.

approached the matter in the correct perspective and has

held the issuance of the notice under Section 148 dated

30.7.2007 to be bad in law and so, too, all the proceedings 23

pursuant thereto. There is no reason for us to interfere

with the impugned order inasmuch as no substantial

question of law arises for our consideration."

6.2 It is also noted that the reasons recorded are vague and non-speaking

and reflect complete non-application of mind much less independent

“application of mind”. The action of the AO has been taken mechanically on

the basis of information of DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun and, not on

independent application of mind and therefore, on this count also the

proceedings are without jurisdiction. Our this view is supported by the

following decisions:-

i) Pr CIT v. RMG Plyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 83

taxmann.com 348 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court)

assessments where the return filed at the initial stage was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act awl not under Section 143(3) of the Act. The reasons for the reopening of the assessment in that case were more or less similar to the reasons in the present case, viz., information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries provided by a 'known' accommodation entry provider. There, on facts, the Court came to the conclusion that the reasons were, in fact, in the form of conclusions "one after the other" and that the satisfaction arrived at by the AO was a "borrowed satisfaction" and at best "a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report."

ii) 395 ITR 677 (Del) Pr. CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas (P)

Ltd. v. ITO

“36. In the present case, as already noticed, the reasons to believe contain not the reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other. There is no independent application of mind by the AO to the tangible material which forms the basis of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a ‘borrowed satisfaction'. The reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the

formation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.

is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances

of the case, no error has been committed by

the ITAT in the impugned order in concluding

that the initiation of the proceedings under

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the

assessments for the AYs in question does not

satisfy the requirement of law.

negative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and

against the Revenue. The appeal is,

accordingly, dismissed but with no orders as to

costs.

6.3 It is further noted that the proceedings have been initiated on the

basis of no material much less any tangible and, relevant material and as

such reasons record do not constitute valid reason to believe for initiating

proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. It is further noted that the approval granted

by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been

taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it

demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons 27

recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this is fit case for issue of

notice u/s. 148 and similarly, the Ld. CIT, Dehradun has mentioned

Yes, I am satisfied” which establishes that both the authorities have not

recorded proper satisfaction / approval, before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the

I.T. Act. Thereafter, the AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the

Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the DCIT,

Central Circle, Dehradun. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances

of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the

assessee, we are of the considered view that the reopening in the case of

the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be

quashed. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:-

(A) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. M/s NC Cables Ltd. in ITA No. 335/2015 has held as under:-

higher ranking officer, For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the findings by the ITAT cannot be disturbed.”

(B). Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of

CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. reported in

(2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) has held as under:-

“7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that

while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax

has only recorded so “Yes, I am Satisfied”. In the case of ARjun

Singh vs. Asstt. DIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP), the same

question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court and the following principles are laid down:-

“The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format “Yes, I am satisfied” which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. Even otherwise also, the exercise is shown to have been performed in less than 24 hours of time which also goes to indicate that the Commisisoner did not apply his mind at all while granting sanction. The satisfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material

sanction for issuing notice under section 148, is clearly unsustainable and we find that on such consideration both the appellate authorities have interfered into the matter. In doing so, no error has been committed warranting reconsideration.”

(C.) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) in the Head Notes has held that “Section 151, read with section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) – High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid – Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed – Held, Yes (in favour of the Assessee).” 6.4 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully

following the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that

proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act by

the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are nonest in law and without

jurisdiction, hence, the re-assessment is quashed. Since we have already

quashed the re-assessment, the other grounds have become academic and

are therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is

allowed.

Order pronounced on 24-05-2018.

Sd/- Sd/- [N.K. BILLAIYA] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 24-05-2018 SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.