CIT v. Atul Jain

Shri Gaurav Chopra, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 133/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Shri Gaurav Chopra, Vs Income Tax Officer, 3-C/6, New Rohtak Road, Ward-33(1), New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipc2912D Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Ca & Sh. P. K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.10.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxviii, New Delhi.

…e following case laws: " Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Vs G & G Pharma Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) " CIT Vs Smt. Anjali Dua 219 CTR 183 (Del.) " CIT Vs Anil Khosla in ITA No. 838/2008 (Del.) " Smt. Smriti Media Vs UOI 339 ITR 37 (Cal.) " CIT Vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del.) 3 Gaurav Chopra " CIT Vs SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del.) " Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.) " CIT Vs Suren International (P.) Ltd. 357 ITR 24 (Del.) " Smt. Meera Kapoor Vs CIT in ITA No. 1395/2008 (Del.) " Smt. Anjali Dua Vs DCIT in ITA No. 4827/Del/2004 " Ranjeet Singh Vs ACIT 120 ITR 517 (Del.) " ITO Vs Kris…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

…51 (Del) " Jagdish Karnany Vs ITO 155 Taxman 35 (Del) " Mrs. Amina Rasool Vs ITO 161 TTJ 405 (Asr.) " Aksar Wire Products (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1167/Del/2015 order dated 11.12.2015 " Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.) " CIT Vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del.) " CIT Vs Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Del.) " ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437 (SC) " CIT Vs Orissa Corp. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) 10. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee was given nu…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

…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. 14 Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd. (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 wh…

M/S. Mission Viejo Agro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4236/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1160C Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.11,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.11,77,528/- Under The Head Income From House Property. 3. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.7,00,000/- Received From M/S 2 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. Golden Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. 4. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Aforesaid Addition Of Rs.7 Lacs Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Discharged Its Onus In Terms Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Ground No. 1 Is Not Pressed, Therefore, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-I’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 4236/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/s Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACM1160C Assessee by : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 10.02.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. Tha…

M/S. Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4235/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp7081P Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.1 1,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.8,24,270/-Under The Head Income From House Property.” 2 Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd. 3. Vide Ground No. 1, The Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To The Validity Of The Jurisdiction For Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

…MOH1NDER SINGH MALIK 267 ITR 716 (P&H). MADHUKAR KHOSLA VS. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (DEL) CIT VS. SMT. PRAMJ1T KAUR 205 TAXATION515 (P & H.) SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. (P) LTD. 329 ITR 110 (DEL) 5 Palos Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd. CIT VS. (1) ATUL JAIN (2) SMT. VINITA JAIN 299 ITR 383 (DEL) SECOND, that as per para 2 of the reasons supplied to us is that, "The brief facts are that search and seizure action was carried out at various premises of Today group and its associate concerns and persons on 26.11.2009 and was finally concluded on 25.01.2010—— " However in this regard it is to be slated that the search action look place…

M/S. Standard Watch Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

…plication of his mind. In this regard, he placed reliance on several decisions including the following one: i) Principal CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. – ii) CIT vs. Khamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. – 248 CTR (Del.) 33; iii) CIT vs. Atul Jain & Ors. – 299 ITR 383 (Del.); iv) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Brooking Ltd.- 233 CTR (Del. 69; v ) Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd.- 329 ITR 110 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Smt. Pramjit Kaur – 311 ITR 38 ( P&H); 8. The Learned AR submitted further that initiation of reassessment proceedings is also not valid since it is amounting to 7 change of opinion that too after four years wi…

Ms. Manju Chowdhry, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed but for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J.S Reddy & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T. A No. 6160/Del/2012 (Assessment Year : 2003-04)

…Malik referred to in the assessment order had been collect d by the A.O. after issue of notice u/s 148. The existence of reasons to believe was must for reopening an assessment as held in the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Jain [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Del). 11. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and the observations made by the A.O in the Assessment Order. As far as providing the reasons to the appellant is concerned. The appellant has not brought on record any letter or request written by her to the A. O. asking for a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the a…

M/S. Blossom Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

…r applied his mind in forming his opinion. 4. The Id. AO has re-opened the case on sum vague information and not on his application of mind, hence the re-opening is void and the assessment should be quashed. The same was held in: 1. CIT vs. Atul Jain (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Del) 2. United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del) 3. Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO 195 Taxmann 262 (Del) 4. Capricon Shopping Complex vs. ITO 218 ITR 721 (Ker) 5. C. Vasanthlal & Co. vs. CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC) 6. CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del) e. Taking all the above submissions togethe…

Sonarika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2008-09 Sonarika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1) C/O Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi A-1/25, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 (Pan: Aakcs1233L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…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 17 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 informat…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Care Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s Cross Objection both are dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2004-05

…ITA 470/Del/11) Care Traders P.Ltd. case and the present appeal, is hereby, dismissed with costs of Rs. 5, 000/- which should be deposited by the appellant within four weeks with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee." 14. In CIT Vs. Atul Jain (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was again considering the issue of bogus/accommodation entries. Commenting on satisfaction note recorded at page 388 the Hon'ble High Court held as under. "Looked at in the light of the decisions placed before us and the law teto down therein, it is necessary to appreciate the information available…

M/S. Banke Bihari Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Banke Bihari Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1) 144/2, Ans House, Ashram, Mathura New Delhi Road, New Delhi - 110 014 (Pan: Aaccb6652Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Amit Goel, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr

…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 19 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 informatio…

M/S. Rmg Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Rmg Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 15(1) (Formerly Known As Pine View New Delhi Construction & Traders P. Ltd.) 302, Elite House, 36, Community Centre, Kailash Colony Extn., New Delhi (Pan: Aaacg2886R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Joshi & Sh. Sanjay Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. Dr

…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 wh…

M/S Excellent Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…r Section 147 of the Act. The Bench reproduced the initial issuance of notice and thereafter referred to the reasons for issue of notice under Section 148 which was provided to the assessee. Thereafter, the Bench referred to the decisions in CIT v. Atul Jain, 299 ITR 383 (Del), Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd (supra), Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT, 223 CTR 269 (Del) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company, 174 Taxman 444 (Del) and eventually held thus:- “9. In the present case, we find that the first sentence of the so-called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is mere information received from the Deputy Dir…

Shraddha Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Blesri C.M.Gargita No. 3280/Del. 2015 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

…id legal grounds and also carefully perused the materials placed on record before us. 4. The Ld. AR placing reliance of the prepositions laid down Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sarthak Securities u/s 270 329 ITR 110 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vineeta Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) and orders of ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO vs. On Exims Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 57 TTJ 633 (ITAT-Delhi) and ACIT vs. Shri Devesh Kumar in ITA no. 2068/Del/2010 dated 31.10.2014 submitted that the AO in the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issuance of not…

M/S. Shri Vardai Ovrseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…quashed as the reasons recorded were based on information received from Additional DIT (Investigation) which was accepted by the AO in a mere mechanical manner. The Ld. AR relied on a plethora of decisions in support of his preposition viz. CIT vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), United Electrical Company (P) Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Delhi), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision rendered by ‘G’ Bench of this Tribunal…

M/S. Shri Vardai Ovrseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…quashed as the reasons recorded were based on information received from Additional DIT (Investigation) which was accepted by the AO in a mere mechanical manner. The Ld. AR relied on a plethora of decisions in support of his preposition viz. CIT vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), United Electrical Company (P) Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. 258 ITR 317 (Delhi), CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) and Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision rendered by ‘G’ Bench of this Tribunal…

M/S. K.K. Arora & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessees’ Appeal No

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…the notice without applying his own mind. Therefore, on these facts, the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 338 ITR 51, Insectici (India) Ltd. (supra), 357 ITR 330 and ClT vs. Atul Jain and Vin Jain, 299 ITR 383 would be squarely applicable because the information on the basis of which the AO had initiated proceedings under section 147 was vague and uncertain as may be evidenced from the relevant para of these judgments. Hence, he requested that the reassessment proceedings may be quashed. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the…