AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 2823/Del/2024 and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 78/Del/2024 for assessment years 2012-13, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order dated 26.03.2024 passed in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1063360803(1), involving proceedings under section 148/153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
We advert to the assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 78/Del/2024 challenging validity of the impugned re-opening itself going to root of the matter. Both the learned representatives invite our attention to the learned Assessing Officers corresponding reopening reasons recorded in its case; reading as under:
“As per the information received from the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1(2), New Delhi, a Search and Survey action u/s 132 and 133A of the IT Act 1961 was conducted on 08.03.2017 at the residenctial and office premises of Sh. Puneet Kulthia, C.A. at 54, Model Town, North-Ex., Delhi-110009 and No.7, Model town, North Ex., Basement Floor, New Delhi-110009 respectively.
As per information, it was found during the search operation and post search proceedings that Sh. Puneet Kulthla Is Involved in providing the accommodation entry to various persons for helping them channelize their unaccounted Income back into their business to raise the capital through bogus sale or income, unsecured loans, share application money and share subscription of shell companies or removing the cash from the business through booking the bogus expenses and also in carrying out Hawala transactions to help his clients transfer the money within India and also to remit the money outside the country. It is also informed that a document "Annexure A" containing the details of monetary transactions entered Into by the assessee M/s Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. with M/s Murli M Chandak Securities Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to the FY: 2011-12 and onwards were found in the Digital Data of Sh. Puneet Kulthia during the search and survey actions. The data shows that during the year, M/s Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. had received Rs. 20 lakhs and paid Rs.39 lakhs to M/s Murli M Chandak Securities Pvt. Ltd. However, the income declared and accepted in the assessment order for the AY: 2012-13 is (-) Rs.14,040/-. The assessing officer is therefore requested to verify the transactions as given in Annexure-A. In view of the facts reported by the Investigation Wing and as per verification /examination of available documents, the transaction of Rs.59 lakhs entered into by the assessee with M/s Murli M Chandak Pvt. Ltd. being not commensurate to its income is considered to be from undisclosed sources. I have therefore, sufficient reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs.59 lakhs has escaped assessment for A.Y.2012-13 in the case of assessee. ”
It is in this factual backdrop that we hereby notice from a perusal of a case records that the learned Assessing Officer had framed section 143(3) r.w.s 153C assessment in the assessee’s case on 30.12.2018 for assessment year A.Y. 2012-13. His reopening reasons recorded on 28.03.2019 followed by section 148 notice issued to the assessee are very well beyond the statutory time period of beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year going by section 147 r.w. 1st proviso thereto. And that there is not even a whisper in the above extracted reopening reasons that the assessee had not “fully” and “truly” disclosed all of its relevant particulars in the former round of regular assessment.
That being the clinching case, we hereby quote Hindustan Lever Limited vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) that such a failure on the learned Assessing Officer’s part in recording of his reopening reasons vitiates the reopening itself without having any scope of any subsequent improvement, addition or substitution therein. We are further mindful of the fact that the learned prescribed authority had approved the said reopening reasons in a purely mechanical manner after observing “perused reasons satisfied and fit case for notice u/s 148 of IT Act”. Hon’ble apex court landmark decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd . (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) has settled the very issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department to this effect that such a mechanical approval is very much fatal to the reopening itself. We thus rejects the Revenue’s vehement submission on this latter account as well. The assessee succeeds in its cross objection C.O. No. 78/Del/2024 and the Revenue main appeal ITA No. 2823/Del/2024 fails as the necessary corollary thereto.
All remaining pleadings between parties on merits stand rendered academic.
This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 2823/Del/2024 is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 78/Del/2024 is allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective files.