M/S. RMG POLYVINYL (I) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Date of Hearing : 11-04-2016 Date of Order : 12-04-2016

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 03.12.2013 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2004-05. The assessee has filed the concise grounds of appeal which are reproduced as under:-

1. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in reopening the case, without considering the provision of law, hence the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 is void & bad in law and needs to be quashed.

2. Without prejudice to above, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the d. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the notice u/s 148 has neither issued by jurisdictional assessing officer nor served on the assessee making the proceedings invalid and void ab-initio.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no effective notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly Assessment Order passed u/s.143 (3) r.w.s 147 is bad in law.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the' case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.1,13,00,000/- by treating the sum received on account of genuine Share capital 8: Share premium as alleged Undisclosed Income, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting and considering the evidence filed before him which was very crucial in deciding the appeal by holding that the appellant's case is not covered under any of the circumstances provided under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, thereby denying the principles of natural justice, which is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of law.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the. case as well as in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition on the basis of the statement of third party, without providing the opportunity to cross examination of such party as requested by the appellant, without allowing cross examination' is i in violation of principles of natural justice and thus the order is void in law and needs to be quashed.

The appellant kindly prays to Your Honours' to kindly allow it to revise the said Grounds of Appeal. The appellant further craves leaves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

Therefore, he requested that by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma Ltd. (Supra) the reassessment proceedings of the AO may be quashed by accepting the Appeal filed by the Assessee.

6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) on the issue of validity of reopening and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the action of the AO of reopening and also rightly upheld the addition in dispute.

“FORM FOR RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 AND FOR OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

and evidences collected, a detailed report has been forwarded. In the instant case, the assessee is found to be the beneficiary of accommodation entry from such entry operators as per the transaction mentioned in the enclosed Annexure-'A' of Rs.1,56,00,000/-. The accommodation entry provider; have given accommodation entries in the grab of share application money / expenses / gift / purchase of shares etc. They have worked for commission. The assessee is a company incorporated on 11.09.1998. It is noticed that there is no return of come is available in the AST database of Income-tax Department. Therefore. it is clear that the assessee has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2004-05 and consequently has not offered any income for taxation. Sources of the transactions are not explained. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts necessary for assessment for the above assessment year, the income chargeable to tax to the extent of accommodation entry of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of I.T. Act. 1961. To bring to tax the income which has escaped assessment, I proposed to issue notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. 1961.

Since, four years has expired from the end of the relevant assessment year, and no scrutiny assessment was completed uls 143(3) in this case for the said assessment year, the reasons recorded above for the purpose of reopening of assessment is put up kind satisfaction of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-14, New Delhi in terms of the proviso of Section 151(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Dated: 16.03.2011 Sd/- (C.M. MEENA) ITO, WARD 14(2), NEW DELHI

CIT, Range-14, New Delhi, we are of the view that AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. In our view the reasons are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as are not acceptable in the eyes of law. The AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. 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. Even otherwise, a perusal of the above demonstrates that the Addl. CIT has written “Yes, I am Satisfied” which establishes that he has 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 Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. 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 view is supported by the following judgments/decisions:-

(A) The Tribunal in its decision dated 9.1.2015 passed in (AY 2003-04) in the case of G&G Pharma India Limited vs. ITO, has held under:-

“8. We have perused the aforesaid reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment in dispute and we are of the considered view that the AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. A mere reference is made to certain information received from the Investigation Wing which was supplied to the assessee vide AO’s letter dated

15.9.2010. In our view the reasons are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as are not acceptable in the eyes of law. The AO had mechanically issued notices u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Investigation, Jhandewalan,

New Delhi. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the 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. We draw our support from the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the following cases:-

(i) Signature Hotels (P)_ Ltd. vs. ITO and another reported in 338 ITR 51 (Del) has under similar circumstances as follows:- “For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections. The assessee company filed writ petition and challenged the notice and the order on objections. The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and held as under:

“(i) Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is wide but not plenary. The Assessing Officer must have ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This is mandatory and the ‘reason to believe’ are required to be recorded in writing by the Assessing Officer. (ii) A notice u/s.148 can be quashed if the ‘belief’ is not bona fide, or one based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. The basis of the belief should be discernible from the material on record, which was available with the Assessing Officer, when he recorded the reasons. There should be a link between the reasons and the evidence/material available with the Assessing Officer. (iii) The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to Rs.5 lakhs during F.Y. 2002-03 as stated in the annexure. According to the information, the amount received from a company, S, was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assessee was the beneficiary. The reasons did not satisfy the requirements of section 147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income. (iv) Further, the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis and material of the information. There was no dispute that the company, S, had a paid up capital of Rs.90 lakhs and was incorporated on January 4, 1989, and was also allotted a permanent account number in September 2001. Thus, it could not be held to be a fictitious person. The reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to the quashed.”

(ii). In the case of CIT vs. Atul Jain reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as under:- “Held, dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the assessee had taken a bogus entry of capital gains by paying cash along with some premium for taking a cheque for that amount. The information did not indicate the source of the capital gains which in this case were shares. There was no information which shares had been transferred and with whom the transaction had taken place. The AO did not verify the correctness of information received by him but merely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical manner. The AO had not even recorded his satisfaction about the correctness or otherwise of the information for issuing a notice u/s 148. What had been recorded by the AO as his “reasons to believe”was nothing more than a report given by him to the Commissioner. The submission of the report was not the same as recording of reasons to believe for issuing a notice. The AO had clearly substituted form for substance and therefore the action of the AO was not sustainable.”

9. In view of above, we are of the considered view that above issue is exactly the similar to the issue involved in the present appeal and is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Hence, respectfully following the above precedent, we decide the legal issue in dispute in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly quash the reassessment proceedings. The other issues are not dealt with as the same have become academic in nature.

(B). Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. in dated 8.10.2015 of the Delhi High Court wherein the Hon’ble Court has adjudicated the issue as under:-

“12. In the present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10th February 2003, from four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO stated: "I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of above accommodation entries." The above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied his mind to the materials that he talks about particularly since he did not describe what those materials were. Once the date on which the so called accommodation entries were provided is known, it would not have been difficult for the AO, if he had in fact undertaken the exercise, to make a reference to the manner in which those very entries were provided in the accounts of the Assessee, which must have been tendered along with the return, which was filed on 14th November 2004 and was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for the AO to have simply concluded: "it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank by way of accommodation entries". In the considered view of the Court, in light of the law explained with sufficient clarity by the Supreme Court in the decisions discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.

(C) ITAT, ‘E’ Bench, New Delhi in the case of ITO vs. M/s NC Cables Ltd. in (AY 2001-02) and in Cross Objection No. 388/Del/2009 in the matter of M/s NC Cables Ltd. vs. ITO, vide order dated 22.10.2014, the Tribunal has held as under:-

“10.2. The Mumbai ‘E’ Bench of the Tribunal in ITA 611/Mum/2004 Amarlal Bajaj (supra) order dt. 24.7.2013 has considered the legal position and held as follows.

“5. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and also the material evidences brought on 8 record from both sides. We have also the benefit of perusing the order sheet entries by which the Ld. CIT has granted sanction. Let us first consider the relevant part of the provisions of Sec. 151 of the Act.

Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2)

In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of [Joint} Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the [Joint} Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.} [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the Joint Commissioner, the Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148,need not issue such notice himself.} "

The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the ITO could not have had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment by reasons of the appellant-firm's failure to disclose material facts and if the 9 Commissioner had read the report carefully he could not have come to the conclusion that this was a fit case for issuing a notice under section 148. The notice issued under section 148 was therefore, invalid. It would be pertinent here to note the reasons recorded by the AO. "Intimation has been received from DCIT-24(2), Mumbai vide his letters dt. 22nd February, 2002 that one Shri Nitin 1. Rugmani assessed in his charge had arranged Hawala entries in arranging loans, expenses, gifts. During the year Shri Amar G. Bajaj, Prop. Of Mohan Brothers, 712, Linking Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-52 was the beneficiary of such loans, expenses and gifts. The modus-operandi was to collect cash from the parties to whom loans were given and cash was deposited into account of Shri Nitin 1. Rugani and cheques were issued to the beneficiary of the loan transaction. In order to ensure that the money reached by cheques to the beneficiary Shri Nitin 1. Rugani kept blank cheques of the third parties.

The assessee Shri Amar G. Bajaj had taken benefit of such entries of loans, commission ad bill discounting of Rs. 8,00,000/-, 11,21,243/- and 9,64,739/- respectively. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the 1. T. Act on 31st March, 1998 by DCIT-Spl. Rg. 40, Mumbai. It is seen from records that the aforesaid points have not been verified in the assessment. I have therefore reason to believe that by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, income has escaped assessment within the meaning of proviso to Sec. 147 and explanation 2 (c)(i) of the income-tax Act, 1961."

7. In the light of the above mentioned reasons, in our considerate view, Section 147 and 148 are charter to the Revenue to reopen earlier assessments and are, therefore protected by safeguards against unnecessary harassment of the assessee. They are sword for the Revenue and shield for the assessee. Section 151 guards that the sword of Sec. 147 may not be used unless a superior officer is satisfied that the AO has good and adequate reasons to invoke the provisions of Sec. 147. The superior authority has to examine the reasons, material or grounds and to judge whether they are sufficient and adequate to the formation of the necessary belief on the part of the assessing officer. If, after applying his mind and also recording his reasons, howsoever briefly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the AO's belief is well reasoned and bonafide, he is to accord his sanction to the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act.

In the instant case, we find from the perusal of the order sheet which is on record, the Commissioner has simply put "approved" and signed the report thereby giving sanction to the AO. Nowhere the Commissioner has recorded a satisfaction note not even in brief. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has accorded sanction after applying his mind and after recording his satisfaction.

9. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court are very much relevant in the instant case as in the present case also the Commissioner has simply mentioned "approved" to the report submitted by the concerned AO. In the light of the ratios/observations of the Hon'ble High Court mentioned hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the reopening proceedings visa-vis provisions of Sec. 151 are bad in law and the assessment has to be declared as void ab initio. Ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal is allowed.

10. As we have held that the reassessment is bad in law, we do not find it necessary to decide other issues which are on merits of the case.”

10.3 No contrary judgment or order is brought to our notice. This being a Co-ordinate Bench order, we are required to follow the same.

10.4 The decision cited by the Ld. DR does not pertain to the issue of contravention of provisions of S. 151 of the Act. These judgments are on other aspects relating to reopening. Thus respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the matter, we hold that the reopening is bad in law for the reason that the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi has not recorded his satisfaction as contemplated u/s. 151 of the Act.”

10. Since we have quashed the orders of the authorities below on the legal issue itself, hence, the other issues raised by the Assessee have become academic in nature, therefore, are not adjudicated upon.