DHANSAMRIDHI FINANCE PVT. LTD., (AMALGAMATED COMPANY) ANUKUL COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,(AMALGAMATING COMPANY),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA

The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal. However, its grievances revolve around two issues, namely- (a) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment, which is not in consonance with SOP issued by the CBDT.

1. (b) The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) would reveal that ld. CIT(Appeals) has not adjudicated the issues on merit. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. This finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not in consonance with sub-section 6 of Section 250. It is pertinent to note that Section 250(6) contemplates that ld. CIT(Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of her conclusion on those points. This mandatory procedure has not been followed by the ld. 1st Appellate Authority.

Apart from the above, we find that assessment order is also very scratchy because hardly any fact has been mentioned by the ld. Assessing Officer in one and half pages order. The ld. Assessing (A.Y. 2011-2012) Dhansamridhi Finance Private Limited (Amalgamated Company) Anukul Commercial Private Limited (Amalgamating Company) Officer has started the assessment order with the opening line “the case was opened for assessment/reassessment of income as there was information in possession that an amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- has escaped assessment during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. Notice under section 148 was issued on 28.03.2018”. A perusal of the assessment order would indicate that six years would end on 31.03.2018 and after this date, ld. Assessing Officer would have no power to issue any notice under section 148. The ld. Assessing Officer has neither reproduced the reasons nor briefly noticed them. He has nowhere mentioned the date when he sought approval. He has not even mentioned when he received this information. On all these procedural aspects, the assessment is silent. On merit also, the ld. Assessing Officer has simply treated the information received by him as a gospel truth without any cross verification and accordingly he passed the assessment order on 27.11.2018 under section 144 read with section 147. To our mind, this is a non-speaking assessment order and not sustainable. Therefore, we set aside both the impugned orders and restore this issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The ld. Assessing Officer first supply the copies of the reasons to the assessee, thereafter decide the validity of the reopening, whether the reopening was justifiably made by him or not, and if he arrived at the conclusion that reopening was justifiably made, only then he would proceed to decide the issue on merit. It is needless to say that ld. Assessing Officer would grant due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.