AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
These three appeals by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi dated 17.12.2025 arising out of the assessment orders dated 28.03.2024 passed by Assessing Officer DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi under section 147 r.w.s 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
Since the above captioned appeals were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1203/Del/2026 are as under :
1.That the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the prescribed limitation, and therefore in the absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law.
2.That the mandatory sanction, as contemplated under section 151 of the Act, accorded by the higher authority was mechanical, therefore the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Act r.w.s. 151 and consequently the reassessment so framed in furtherance of such invalid assumption of jurisdiction is invalid and bad in law.
3.That in the absence of a signature on the alleged sanction provided under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, the approval is invalid and non-est in law, and therefore the reassessment proceedings in furtherance of such invalid approval are also illegal.
4.That there was no 'reason to believe' as contemplated under section 147/148 of the Act and consequently the issuance of notice under section 148 to commence the reassessment proceedings is also invalid and bad in law.
5.That in the absence of any corroborative and independent evidence, mere reliance on the loose documents seized during the course of search to allege that the appellant received cash is arbitrary, unjust and illegal.
6.That the addition of Rs. 37,23,163/- by invoking section 69A of the Act is arbitrary, unjust and illegal.
7.That the appellant denies its liability to pay interest under sections 234B and 234D of the Act.
8.That without prejudice, the provision of section 115BBE is applicable from A.Y. 2018-19 on wards and consequently the levy of tax under section 115BBE of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 by the assessing officer is arbitrary, unjust and deserves to be deleted.
9.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any ground during the course of the proceedings.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company who declared its source of income as profits and gains from business and profession. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted 07.10.2022 in the case of M/s. Archohm Consults Pvt. Ltd. wherein certain documents were found. The documents were seized during the search contained certain information which showed that assessee had made cash payments with the group to the tune of Rs.44.67 lac in A.Y. 2013-14, Rs.37.23 lac in A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs. 18.30 lac in A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer issued a notice for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.03.2023 u/s 148 of the Act.
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the reasons for reopening was that the assessee had made expenditure in cash. However, while making assessment, the addition has been made on account of receipt of cash from Ms. Madhu Dawar which was not recorded in the books of account. It is submitted that the reopening based on one reason and making addition on another reason is not permitted u/s 148 of the Act.
Per contra, learned DR relied upon the order of the AO.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an uncontroverted fact that the reopening of the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16 is on account of making expenditure in cash whereas the addition has been made on account of receipt of cash. In such circumstances and facts, we are of the considered view that the entire process of reopening u/s 148 of the Act is vitiated in accordance with the decision of hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236( Bom.) which was followed by the hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136(Del.) and CIT vs. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd.(Del.). Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act and consequent order passed u/s 147 of the Act are quashed. Appeal is allowed.
In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed