M/S Super Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 2472/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Super Industries, Vs Ito, Prop. S. Jagjit Singh, Ward-33(3), L/H Shri Joginder Singh, New Delhi. N.7, Gali No.9, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi. Pan: Aasps8033M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Ranu Mukherjee, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-17, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal For Non-Appearance. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Ma No.118/Del/2017, Order Dated 16Th February, 2018, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & The Proprietor Of M/S Super Industries. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th October, 2006 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,89,640/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Obtained That The Assessee Indulged In Bogus Purchases/Accommodation Entries Provided By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Vishesh Gupta, Shri Navneet & Shri Vaibhav Jain. Accordingly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened After Recording Reasons As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act. Notice U/S 148 Dated 28Th March, 2013 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. The Ao, Thereafter, Issued Statutory Notices. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Observing That The Assessee Has Made Bogus Purchase Of Rs.13,03,692/- From Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Co. & Shree Shyam Trading Co., Which Are Owned By The Persons Named Earlier, Made Addition Of Rs.13,03,692/- U/S 69C Of The It Act.
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ranu Mukherjee, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69C
…aterial produced, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to conclude that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment." 8. Similarly, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO and Anr. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (supra) held as under: "Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is wide but not plenary. The Assessing Officer must have "reason to believe" that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This is mandatory and the "reasons to believe" are required to be recorded in writing by the Assessing Officer. Sufficiency of reasons is not a matte…
