Assessee challenged validity of reassessment framed under section 147 on the ground of AO not having disposed of assessee's objections to reasons recorded under section 148. Held: Failure to dispose of objections filed by assessee by passing speaking order vitiated impugned reassessment order under section 147/148. Further, AO issued notice under section 148 prior to approval by the competent authority under section 151. Accordingly, reassessment was quashed as invalid.
IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
H.S. SIDHU, J.M. & PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M.
Shokeen Realtors (P) Ltd. v. ITO
I.T.A. No. 4420/Del/2019
31 December, 2020
In favour of Assessee.
Revenue by: Satyajeet Goel, C.A.
Assessee by: Aman Preet, Sr. DR
H.S. Sidhu, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned Order, dated 25-3-2019 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-31, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2008-09on the following grounds :--
1(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the re-assessment proceedings under section 147 even though the reasons are vague, unsubstantiated and not based on any tangible material and requisite approval in terms of section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
(ii) That the reasons to belief are merely on the basis of information from investigation wing and in absence of any independent application of mind or live nexus with any adverse tangible material, the notice under section 148 is illegal and bad in law.
(iii) That the reasons are factually incorrect and contains duplicate entries and having been recorded without proper application of mind, the same are invalid and fails to provide valid jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961.
(iv) That in any case, in absence of disposal of objections to notice under section 148 through speaking order, the entire reassessment proceedings is in disregard to principle laid down Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Driveshafts 259 ITR 19 and not sustainable under the law.
2. That the assessing officer having failed to issue and serve mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the reassessment proceedings under section 147 suffers from incurable jurisdictional defect and are illegal and void-ab-initio.
3. (i) That in any case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 45,34,228 under section 69C of the Act being purchases made by the appellant even though same is supported from relevant documents.
(ii) That the source of expenses being not in dispute, the invocation of section 69C and consequential addition is illegal, irrational and not sustainable under the provisions of the Act.