Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI L.P. SAHU
ORDER
Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi dated 29.05.2014 for the assessment year 2000-01 on the following grounds : “
1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of order passed by the AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was passed without serving the jurisdictional notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the assessee.
2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of initiation of the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act as the same were initiated without independent applicant of mind by the AO.
3. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO treating the share capital of Rs.1,00,000 raised from Mr. Mahesh Aggarwal and Rs.2,00,000 raised from M/s. Transpan Financial Services Ltd. as income u/s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 when the initial onus placed on the assessee in proving the cash credits had been fully discharged by producing documentary evidence which was not rebutted by the AO in any manner.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2000 declaring income of Rs.75,470/-. The case was processed u/s. 143(1). Information was received regarding entry operators and their beneficiaries from the office of DIT(Inv.)-I, New Delhi vide D. No. 1399 dated 02.03.2006 and No. DIT(Inv.)-1/2006-07/AE/1536 dated 05.02.2007. On the basis of information following types of entries were received : Assessee Value of entry Date on Name of Bank a/c Bank A/c taken which entry account from which taken holder of entry given entry giving account Bank of India 100000 28/03/2000 Mahesh Garg A/c No.3578, State Bank of Patiala, DG Bank of India 200000 28/03/2000 Transpan A/c No. 4217, Financial State Bank of Services Patiala, DG
The Assessing Officer issued notice on 29.03.2007 on the address R- 12A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, which is available on record. In response to the notice, non appeared on specified date. The ld. Assessing Officer issued letter on 12.10.2007 on the above mentioned address for filing of return, but no response received. The AO issued another letter to the same effect on 23.11.2007. This letter was sent to the new address at B-14, ground Floor, Chirag Enclave, Nehru Place, New Delhi. This letter was sent by speed post No. ED341755945IN dated 26.11.2007. This letter was received back from the postal authorities unserved with the remark “left without address”. The AO sent another letter on 23.11.2007 at the residential address of the Director, Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta at 56, Navjeevan Vihar, New Delhi 110017. This letter was received by the Director on 09.12.2007. In response to the letter dated 23.11.2007, the assessee filed a letter on 11.12.2007 before the AO stating that the notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2007 was not received by him. But he submitted that the original return filed by assessee on 29.11.2000 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148. The reasons recorded for reopening proceedings was provided to the assessee. The assessment was completed by adding Rs.3,00,000/- as provided in the chart above. The assessee objected the service of notice which is mandatory requirement. The assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority against the above assessment order passed by the ld. AO u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
During the course of arguments, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no notice u/s. 148 has been served upon the assessee, which is mandatory requirement under the Income Tax Act for making re-assessment. Mrs. Madhu Gupta, director and Principal Officer of assessee company had produced her affidavit denying the receipt of any notice u/s. 148 of the Act. He submitted that it has not been considered by the AO and the CIT(A). He further submitted that the assessment has been made on the basis of information received from DIT (Inv.) wing. The AO has not applied his mind before reopening the case. Therefore, the entire assessment is against the law and void ab initio.
The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority. He submitted that the ld. Authorities below have passed correct orders. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference.