Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

15-01-2020, Behat Holdings, Section 148, 133(6), Tribunal Delhi

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
6 days 3 hours ago #12056 by amit
Section - 148, 133(6), 68, 147, 151
Order Date - 15-01-2020
Favouring - Assessee
Court - Tribunal Delhi
Appellant - Behat Holdings Ltd.
Respondent - ITO
Justice - BHAVNESH SAINI JM & N.K. BILLAIYA AM
Citation - 120Taxpundit121
Appeal No. - ITA.No.8066/Del./2019
Asstt. Year - 2010-2011

Order

PER : BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi, Dated 13.09.2019, for the A.Y. 2010-2011.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that return of income for the A.Y. 2010-2011 was filed by the assessee. Notice under section 148 was issued on 27.03.2017 and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice under section 148, assessee filed copy of the return of income declaring loss of Rs.(-)95,916/- already filed on 15.10.2010. The A.O. issued statutory notices for comp etion of the assessment. Though the assessee attended the proceedings and furnished relevant requisite details which have been examined by the A.O. A.O. in the re-assessment order from paras 1 to 8 reproduced the c py of the reasons recorded under section 148 of the I T. Act. Thereafter, A.O. noted that assessee was provided copy of the reasons and objections raised have been disposed of. The assessee has filed submissions giving confirmation copy of the account and copy of the ITR in respect of the parties from whom share capital/share premium were raised during the year under consideration. The A.O. issued notices under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act for verification. Only one party responded. The assessee has not produced the Directors of the concerned parties. Therefore, the A.O. made addition of Rs.7 crores under section 68 of the I.T. Act and also made addition of Rs.14 lakhs on account of Commission paid @ 2%. The assessment order was passed under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as additions on merit before the Ld. CIT(A). The detailed submissions of the assessee are reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee.

3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to proceedings recorded for reop ning of the assessment, copy of which is filed at page-16 of the PB and submitted that reasons are undated. PB-23 is letter of the assessee dated 06.06.2017 requesting the A.O. to supply copy of the sanction accorded by Pr. CIT under section 151 along with copy of the reasons recorded along with all the Annexures, copy of proposal sent for approval and as to when proposal was sanctioned and when proposal was received back. The assessee also asked for copy of the letter of SFIO Dated 05.01.2017 mentioned in the reasons so that the assessee will be able to file objections against the reopening of the assessment. PB-41 is letter of the A.O. whereby approval of the Pr. CIT have been conveyed to the assessee. PB-42 is proforma for recording reasons and approval to be granted dated 09.10.2019. PB-28 is letter of the A.O. dated 27.09.2017 in which it is intimated to the assessee that all the facts on the basis of the report of SFIO (Inv ) Wing of the Department have been incorporated in the reasons which have been provided to him. Further, copy of the report of SFIO (Inv.) Wing of the Income Tax Department is confidential in nature, therefore, same cannot be provided or part with as requested by assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that A.O. has refused to supply all the Annexures referred to in the reasons, therefore, assessee was not able to file detailed objections to the reopening of the assessment. PB-13 is notice under section 148 in which A.O. has mentioned that notice have been issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of Addl. CIT/Pr. CIT/Pr. CCIT. He has submitted that it is not clear
from the notice as to which Authority has granted approval under section 151 of the I.T. Act. He has referred to PB-43 in which the approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax is blank and that Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax while granting approval has mentioned “Yes, I am satisfied”. He has submitted that there is no application of mind before granting approval and such approval is not find valid by various Courts. The A.O. has not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the reassessment order is invalid and bad in law. Since complete copy of the reasons along with Annexures have not been supplied to the assessee, therefore, there is no basis to initiate proceedings under section 148 of the I.T. Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SABH Infrastructure Ltd., vs ACIT [2017] 398 ITR 198 (Del.) (HC) in which the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has directed the Revenue Department to adhere to the following guidelines in the matter of reopening of the assessment.

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Behat Holdings Ltd. vs. ITO

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.099 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

CIT vs. Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd.

CIT vs. Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd.

CIT vs. Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd. Read More
CIT vs. NARODA ENVIRO PROJECTS LTD.

CIT vs. NARODA ENVIRO PROJECTS LTD.

CIT vs. NARODA ENVIRO PROJECTS LTD. Read More
CIT vs. Zuari Industries Ltd.

CIT vs. Zuari Industries Ltd.

CIT vs. Zuari Industries Ltd. Read More
INTEC CORPORATION vs. ACIT

INTEC CORPORATION vs. ACIT

INTEC CORPORATION vs. ACIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar