PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

Bithal Nath Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

…ision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys reported in 248 CTR 33(Del.), in the case of CIT vs Sh. Atul Jain and Vinit Jain reported in 292 ITR 383(Del.) and in the case of Pr. CIT vs Rmg Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del.). 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as per notice u/s 148, the case of the assessee was reopened after getting approval from the Pr.CIT-11, New Delhi. The assessee vide letters dated 02.05.2018 and 13.08.2018 requested the Assessing Officer to provide the copy of the approval taken u/s 151(1) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 5711…

Uma Strips Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Uma Strips Ltd., Vs Dcit, Bn-48, East Shalimar Bagh, Circle-27(1), New Delhi-110088 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu2078B Assessee By : Sh. Upwan Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. K. A. Manu, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.05.2022

…ed assessment. 10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. 395 ITR 677, G&G Pharma 384 ITR 147, Sabh Infrastructure 398 ITR 198 and Pr. CIT Vs. RMC Potyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 wherein the Delhi High Court has held that observations of the Investigation Wing should not be treated as conclusions without the AO independently verifying the same, in the absence of which the Hon’ble Court held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. 11. Hence, we hold that the proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T. Act are void ab initio an…

Anm Fincap P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

…ade on wrong set of facts and the approval/sanction granted under section 151 of the of the I.T. Act, 1961 is in a very mechanical manner and without application of mind. 7.2. We find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RMG Polyvinyl India Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Del.) while quashing the re-assessment proceedings on account of wrong facts has observed as under : “10. In this context the following observations of this Court in CIT v. Suren International [2013] 57 ITR 24/[2014] 225 Taxman 88/[2013] 35 taxmann.com 398 (Delhi) are relevant (page-33) : ". . . . . In the first instance, we do not find the reas…

Udesh Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Udesh Sharma, Vs. Ito, Village & Post Ward-2(1), Sadarpur, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Czbps8441K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e, issue emerge as to whether reopening of case can be made u/s 147/148 of the Act, on the basis of AIR information alone without being corroborated and verifying independently by the AO. 6.4 The Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. RMG (396 ITR 5) dealt with the issue qua Investigation Report and held as under:- "As in the above case, even in the present case, the Court is unable to discern the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. In the present case too, the information received from the Investigation Wing cannot…

Technicon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Technicon Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Sanjivsapra& Associates Circle-25(1), Llp, Cas, C-763, New Friends New Delhi Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aacct7296C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…of the Act, which goes to the root of the case and dent the re-opening itself. 3.1 The Assessee also relied upon various judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in support of its case such as in the cases of PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd (396 ITR 5)and Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd (395 ITR 677), etc and raised the contention that the reopening was done onthe basis ofborrowed satisfaction without applying independent mind and even otherwisethe reopening was not based upon any material except the information received from the office of the ADCIT, Investigation and therefore the same…

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

…round for quashing of reassessment proceedings:- (i) Shamshad Khan vs ACIT 395 ITR 265 (Del); (ii) Pr CIT vs M/s SNG Developers Ltd, 404 ITR 312 (Del); (iii) CIT vs Suren International Pvt Ltd., 357 ITR 24 (Del); (iv) Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del); (v) CIT vs. Atlas Cycle industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H); (vi) Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. ACIT & Others (2007) 293 ITR 548 (Bom.); (vii) Ankita A. Choksey vs. Income Tax Officer And Others (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom.); (viii) DCIT vs M/s KLA Foods (India) Ltd and othrs ITA No.2846/Del/2015 dt: 08.04.2019; (ix) M/s SPJ Hotels P Ltd…

Gbs Marketing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Gbs Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Ito, C/O- Kapil Goel, Adv. Ward-10(1), F-26/124, Sector-7, Vs Room No.334A, Rohini, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaccg3475E Assessee Revenue

…plication of mind. 14. It has been held in various decisions that when the AO reopens the assessment on incorrect or wrong facts, such reopening is not valid and has to be quashed. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5 has quashed the reassessment proceedings, where such reopening was based on wrong sets of facts and was initiated on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing without application of mind by the AO. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under:- “11. There can be no manner of doubt that in the instant case there wa…

Davinder Kaur Marwah, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-40(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

…sfy himself and reached to reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Such omission of vital fact of filing of return of income has been frowned upon by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyal (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 (Del.).” 14. I find the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deepak Gupta & Sons vs ITO, vide ITA No.8748/Del/2019, dt. 09.11.2020 has observed as under:- “4.1 We are of the considered view that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is based on presumption and without application of mind by stating therein that assessee has no…

Sh. Hafizuddin Hazi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

…the assessment and the approval given by the higher authorities show that there is complete non- application of mind. 11. The ld. Counsel, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyal (I) Ltd., reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del) submitted that the Hon’ble Court has held that the information received from the Investigation Wing was not tangible material per se without a further enquiry having been undertaken by the AO who had deprived himself of that opportunity 6 that proceeding on erroneous premise that the assessee had not filed a return for the AY 2004-05 when in…

Inderjeet Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-38(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) New Delhi-110085 New Delhi PAN No. AFIPK 9361 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Gaurav Bansal, C.A. Revenue by Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 06.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.06.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax – Delhi – 13, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…l); iii. Pr CIT vs M/S SNG Developers Ltd 404 ITR 312 (Del) approved by Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP of revenue in SLP © 42379/2017 Dt: 09.02.2018; iv. CIT vs Suren International Pvt Ltd 357 ITR 24 (Del); v. Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Del), vi. CIT vs., Atlas Cycle industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H); vii. Siemens Information System Ltd., vs. ACIT & Others (2007) 293 ITR 548 (Bom.); viii. Ankita A. Choksey vs. Income Tax Officer And Others (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bon.); ix. DCIT vs M/s KLA Foods (India) Ltd and others ITA No.2846/Del/2015 dt: 08.04.2019 x. M/s SPJ Hotels P Ltd…

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1060 & 1061/DEL/2015 Assessment Year 2007-08 & 2009-10 J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT, B-17, First Floor, Circle-II, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad. Faridabad. TAN/PAN: AAACJ9814A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajesh Jain, CA Respondent by: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 05 07 2021 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2021 O R D E R PER, AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned ord…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

…on of law that the reason for reopening must be complete and self explanatory demonstrating the application of mind by the AO of the relevant material in his possession. He also relied on the following decisions:- i. Pr. CIT vs RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 5(Del.) ii. Pr. CIT vs G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) iii. CIT vs Independent Media Pvt. Ltd. in iv. Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs ITO [2011] 338 ITR 0051 (Del.) v. CIT vs SFIL Stock Broking ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del.) vi. Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del.) vii. CIT vs Suprme Polypropolene (P) Ltd. viii. CIT vs Multiplex T…

M/S Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…he Act wherein the addition is also made of Rs.90,00,000/-. Thus, the facts mentioned in the proforma for reasons for reopening of the assessment are incorrect and non-existent. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl reported in 396 ITR 5 (Delhi) has held as under : “9. However, in neither of the above cases are the facts similar to those in the present case. The two glaring errors in the reasons in the present case are, in fact, unusual. What the AO might have done if he was aware, even at the stage of consideration of reopening of the assessment that a return had in fact been file…

M/S Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…he Act wherein the addition is also made of Rs.90,00,000/-. Thus, the facts mentioned in the proforma for reasons for reopening of the assessment are incorrect and non-existent. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl reported in 396 ITR 5 (Delhi) has held as under : “9. However, in neither of the above cases are the facts similar to those in the present case. The two glaring errors in the reasons in the present case are, in fact, unusual. What the AO might have done if he was aware, even at the stage of consideration of reopening of the assessment that a return had in fact been file…