AO based on information emanated from investigation wing as to assessee-company having received share application money from alleged paper companies/dummy companies, issued notice under section 148 so as to reopen assessment. Held: Every aspect regarding receipt of share application money was examined in the original assessment proceedings and thus proposed reopening was nothing but mere change of opinion. Accordingly, section 148 notice was quashed as invalid.
IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M.
Nishit Fincap (P) Ltd. v. ITO
ITA No. 2323/Del/2017
16 September, 2020
In favour of assessee.
Assessee by: Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA
Revenue by: R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
N.K. Billaiya, A.M.
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-6, New Delhi dated 15-2-2017 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08.
2. Vide Ground Nos. 1 to 1.6, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings by raising several issues and claiming that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is bad in law.
3. Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 challenge the addition on merits of the case.
4. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length, case records carefully perused and with the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have considered the documentary evidences brought on record in the Form of Paper Book in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules and have also perused the judicial decisions relied upon by both the sides.
5. Facts on record show that, in this case, the original assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]. Subsequently, the assessing officer came to notice that the assessee company had received accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 38 lakhs during the year under consideration. This was pursuant to the information received from the Investigation Wing and on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The reasons for belief that income had escaped assessment read as under :--