Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: E: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & M.BALAGANESH
ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(A) New Delhi dated 24.02.2020 for AY 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as follows:-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.
2. On the fact and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148, made by A.O. is bad and liable to be quashed as the condition and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with.
4. (i) On the fact and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the A.O. is bad in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is made on the basis of reasons recorded without there being any independent application of mind.
(ii) That the reassessment order passed by the A.. is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened on the basis of the reasons which are vague and against the facts on record.
Pressing into service ground no. 1 to 4 of assessee the ld. counsel submitted that against the of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer copy available at pages 13 & 14, the assessee filed objections on 23.11.2018 and requested the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the objections by passing a well reason orders. The ld. counsel submitted that at the time of recording reasons for reopening of assessment the Assessing Officer picked up amount of five entities totaling to Rs. 1,16,02,500/-. The ld. counsel submitted that at the time of recording reasons the Assessing Officer was not aware of the nature of transactions as he has not mentioned in the reasons as to on what count the assessee had received these amounts. The ld. counsel submitted that in fact the assessee has received share application money from three entities i.e. Accent, Rhythm and City life, while it has received money on account of sale of shares from Star Delta and Transmission. Vehemently relying on the various judgements including judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the cases of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (India) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del), the learned AR submitted that the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, notice u/s. 148 of that and all assessment proceedings and orders may kindly be quashed only on two count.
Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that at the time of recording reasons the Assessing Officer is not required to make a details inquiry on the entire material gathered by the investigation team hence non application of mind cannot be alleged to tag the reassessment order as invalid and bad in law.
On careful consideration of above submissions from the copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer available at pages 13 & 14 of assessee paper book first of all we note that in first three paras the Assessing Officer noted the facts and details regarding search and seizure operation on Shri Himanshu Verma group and thereafter tallied the same with return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12. Thereafter in subsequent para he mentioned the provision of explanation 2(b) to section 147 of the Act and directly held that it is a case where it shall be deemed to be the case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and in the subsequent para he directly jumped to a conclusion that he has reason to believe that undisclosed income has escaped assessment. We are unable to see any exercise on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine and ascertain the character or nature of transaction alleged by the investigation wing. In the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (supra) and PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl India Ltd.n(supra) the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the reason to believe contain not the reason only but 2