SUMANGAL TECHPARK (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 24(3), NEW DELHI
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B
…Vs ACIT WP(T) No.346 of 2017 Dated 03.01.2018 (Chattisgarh High Court); f. German Remedies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom); g. United Electrical Company PLtd. vs. CIT & Ors[2002) 258 ITR 317(Del)"; h. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs .ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del).” ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… “d. Non-Compliance of First Proviso to sec 147 I. In view of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) dt: 30.11.2012 (PB 181) and the action u/s 147 initiated after expiry of four years from the end of assessment year, the appellant’s case could not have been reopened unless the e…
