Subject: AR finally submitted that in the interest of justice additional ground,
Referred Sections: Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act Section 250 of the Income Tax Act Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,
Referred Cases / judgments CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR CIT vs. M/s. S. Goyanka Lime ITO vs. Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Kalpana Shantilal Haria vs. ACIT Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DDIT GTL Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 37 ITR DSJ Communication vs. DCIT Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. PCIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl PCIT vs. Meenakshi Oversaes (supra), PCIT vs. G&G Pharma PCIT vs. RMG Polyviny CIT v. M/s. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI `F' BENCH, NEW DELHI
, . . ,
BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
. / ITA No.132/Del/2018
/ Assessment Year: 2009-10
Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income
E-104, Greater Kailash Enclave, Tax,
Part-I, Circle-19(2),
New Delhi. New Delhi.
[PAN: AAECP 6502F]
(/Appellant) (/Respondent)
/ Assessee by : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.A,
/Revenue by : Smt. Parmita Tripathy, CIT(DR)
/Date of Hearing : 09-05-2018
/Date of Pronouncement : 06-08-2018
/ORDER
PER C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi (`CIT(A)' for
short) dated 22.12.2016 for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2009-10 passed
under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act').
2. The grounds raised by the Assessee read as follows:
1. That the impugned order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter refer to Ld. CIT (A)] dated
18.09.2017 is bad in law and on facts.
2
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
2. The Impugned orders of authorities below need be set aside
as the reassessment proceedings have been initiated without
obtaining a subjective satisfaction by the Pr CIT Delhi-7, New
Delhi as the approval u/s 151 is mechanical and without
application of mind.
3. The reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO is
based on the information received from investigation wing and
there was no material before him to substantiate the allegation
contained in the information and therefore intiation of
proceedings is bad in law.
4. The order under appeal is bad in iaw as the assessing officer
has passed the order of assessment u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the
Act without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act.
5. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) deserves to be set aside as
the assessee was not allowed adequate opportunity of being
heard.
6. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) under section
250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 is bad in law and not justified
because Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal simply on
account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellant
without appreciating the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in case of CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar
Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407
(Bombay), where it has been held that law does not empower
Ld. CIT (A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
7. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the Act is
perverse to the provisions of the law and to the facts of the
case, because of not following the provision of section 250(6)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which states that order of the
Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in
writing and shall state the points for determination, the
decision thereon and the reason for the decision.
8. That the addition of Rs. 10,49,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act has
been made by the Ld. Assessing officer and confirmed by the
Ld. CIT(A) ignoring the fact that in absence of enquiry by the
AO on basis of the evidences furnished, the consequent order
need be set aside.
9. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming
addition of Rs.31,47,000/- ignoring the fact that the above
addition is based on conjectures and surmises and there was
no material before the AO to support the above addition.
3
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground:
3. By way of this application the assessee prayed for admission and
adjudication of additional ground which reads as follows:
"That on facts and in law, the impugned order of assessment is invalid
and unsustainable in law as the same has been passed by the AO
without providing the reasonable time of four weeks for taking remedy
against the order of disposal of preliminary objection against the
incorrect assumption of jurisdiction by the AO u/s. 147 in violation of
principles enunciated by Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints
Ltd. 296 ITR 90."
4. On said application, we have heard the arguments of both sides
and carefully perused the relevant material placed on the record of the
Tribunal. The ld. Assessee's Representative (AR) submitted that the
additional ground is a pure legal grounds and such ground can be raised
by the assessee at any appellate stage. For this proposition, the
reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR
383 (SC), which rendered a proposition that the assessee is entitled to
urge additional ground at any stage provided the ground raised
emanates from the order under appeal and for adjudicating the ground
no fresh evidences are required to adduced. The ld. AR finally
submitted that in the interest of justice additional ground, which is only
an elaboration of ground No.4, may kindly be admitted for adjudication.
5. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the
additional ground cannot be raised before the Tribunal at this belated
4
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
stage. However, he could not controvert the fact that the assessee is
challenging initiation of reassessment proceedings and consequent
orders before the authorities below and the additional ground is a legal
ground on the same legal contentions of the assessee.
6. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, we are of the
view that from the grounds of the assessee raised in Form No.35 and
36, it is apparent that the assessee is challenging validity of reopening
and initiation of reassessment proceedings continuously during
assessment and first appellate proceedings and the additional ground
sought to be raised is also pertaining to the same legal contention of the
assessee. This ground being legal ground may be decided on the basis
of material and document already on record and no fresh evidence or
document is required to be adduced. Therefore, respectfully following
ratio of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of in the case of National
Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (supra) the additional ground of the
assessee is admitted for hearing. Application for admission and
consideration of additional ground is allowed.
Ground No.2, 3, 4 & additional ground of the assessee:
7. Apropos these legal grounds , we have heard the arguments of
both sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on the
record of the Tribunal. As agreed by both the parties, we have heard
5
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
argument of both the sides on these legal grounds of the assessee,
wherein the assessee has challenged to the initiation of reassessment
proceedings and reopening of assessment u/s. 147/148 of the Act. The
ld. AR submitted that the impugned order of assessment is invalid and
unsustainable in law as the same has been passed by the AO without
providing the reasonable time of four weeks for taking remedy against
the order of disposal of preliminary objection against the incorrect
assumption of jurisdiction by the AO u/s. 147 of the Act in violation of
principles enunciated by Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints
Ltd. 296 ITR 90. He further submitted that the Impugned orders of
authorities below need be set aside as the reassessment proceedings
have been initiated without obtaining a subjective satisfaction by the Pr.
CIT Delhi-7, New Delhi as the approval u/s 151 is mechanical and
without application of mind.
8. The ld. AR vehemently pointed out that the reassessment
proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO is based on the information received
from investigation wing and there was no material before him to
substantiate the allegation contained in the information and therefore
initiation of proceedings is bad in law. He also contended that the order
under appeal is bad in law as the assessing officer has passed the order
6
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
of assessment u/s 143(3) r/w. s. 147 of the Act without issuing notice u/s
143(2) of the IT Act.
9. The ld. AR drew our attention towards copy of proforma of
obtaining approval u/s. 151 of the Act along with reasons recorded,
which are placed at pgs. 16-18 of the assessee's paper book, submitted
that in column 12 Addl. CIT has granted approval without application of
mind by writing only `Yes, I am satisfied'. The ld. AR submitted that as
per decision of Hon Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs.
M/s. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd. 231 Taxman 0073 (MP),
where the Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical
manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing
notice u/s. 148 of the Act and has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied"
then, the reopening assessment has to be held as invalid. The ld. AR
also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of ITO vs.
Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.89/Del/2012 dated
09.02.2018. The ld. AR submitted that as per decision of Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay in WP (L) No.3063/2017 in the case of Smt. Kalpana
Shantilal Haria vs. ACIT dated 22.12.2017, sanction for issuing a
reopening notice cannot be mechanical but has to be on due application
of mind. Sanction accorded despite mention of non-existent section in
the notice is prima facie evidence of non-application of mind on the part
7
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
of the sanctioning authority. Their lordship in this judgment categorically
held that such defect cannot be cured u/s. 292B of the Act.
10. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi dated 31.08.2017 in WP(C) No. 614/2014 in the case of Yum!
Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DDIT it was held that the glaring mistakes
in the proforma for approval is the valid ground for quashing the
assessment on the premise of non-application of mind by all the
authorities involved in the process of recording reasons and providing
satisfaction/s. 151 of the Act. Further placed reliance on the decision of
ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTL Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 37 ITR (Trib.)
0376 (Mum.), notice u/s. 148 of the Act does not mention the fact that
the same is issued after the satisfaction of the authority u/s. 151 of the
Act, such non-mentioning of this fact renders the consequent
assessment invalid in law, Relied on the judgment of DSJ
Communication vs. DCIT 222 Taxman 129 (Bom.).
11. On the issue of validity of reopening and initiation reassessment
proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act the ld. AR also pointed out that as per
ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian
Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 (Bom), the AO to wait for four weeks to begin
assessment after disposing of the objection and non-compliance of the
same renders assessment proceedings void. He submitted that in the
8
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
present case the objections of the assessee vide dated 29.11.2016 filed
before the AO were disposed of/dismissed by the AO by the order dated
12.12.2016 and he passed impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3)
r/w s. 147 of the Act on 22.12.2016 which is clear violation of directions
given by Hon'ble High Court in the case of Asian Paints (supra) and on
this count also reassessment proceedings and consequent orders are
void and thus, bad in law. This view was again approved by Hon'ble
High Court of Bombay itself in the subsequent decision in the case of
Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 362 ITR 403 (Bom) and
followed by ITAT, Bombay in the case of Shri Hirachand Kanuga vs.
DCIT in ITA No.4261 & 4262/2012 dated 27.02.2015.
12. On these submissions, the ld. DR could not controvert the facts
that the AO disposed of objections of the assessee by way of passing
order on 12.12.2016 and impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r/w
s. 147 of the Act was passed only after 10 days of disposal of
objections. These facts trigger the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Asian paints (supra), wherein their
lordship directed that the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment
after disposing of the objections of the assessee and non-compliance
the same renders assessment proceedings void and bad in law.
Present impugned reassessment order cannot be held sustainable and
9
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
valid as the AO has passed the same immediately after 10 days of
disposal of/dismissal of objection of the assessee which is clear violation
of direction of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian paints
(supra) and legal contention of the assessee on this issue are found to
be acceptable and we hold so.
13. The ld. AR drew our attention towards reasons recorded and
submitted that there is no date in the reasons recorded which shows
casual approach of the AO while recording the reasons. The ld. AR
submitted that as per decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of
Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. 395 ITR 677
(Del) if the reasons failed to demonstrate the link between the tangible
material and formation of the reasons to believe that the income has
escaped assessment then, it would amount to borrowed satisfaction and
it has to be presumed that there is no independent application of mind
by the AO to the tangible material which forms the basis of the reason to
believe that income has escaped assessment. The ld. AR submitted
that from the three pages of reasons recorded, it is discernable that in
first four paras the AO has noted facts of the information received from
DDIT (investigation), Faridabad, in para 6 modus operandi of entry
providers has been noted thereafter, in para 7 & 8, it has been arisen
that either during survey or post survey proceedings the assessee
10
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
company has not submitted satisfactory explanation to prove identity,
genuineness and creditworthiness of share capital/premium introducers
and thus, the same is from paper companies of entry operator and then,
he recorded satisfaction that the assessee company taken
bogus/accommodation entries. The ld. AR vehemently pointed out that
thereafter in last para 9 & 10, the AO, without applying mind to the
information received from the Investigation Wing, recorded that he has
reason to believe that the an income has escaped assessment which
clearly shows that the AO proceeded to initiate initiatory assessment
proceedings and reopening of assessment without having any valid
satisfaction on the basis of borrowed satisfaction as there was no
independent application of mind to the tangible material received from
Investigation Wing, which could form the basis reason to believe that
income has escaped assessment.
14. Further placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384
ITR 147 (Del), the ld. AR submitted that reopening of assessment by an
AO based on the information received from the Director of Investigation
without making any effort to discuss the materials on the basis on which
he formed a prima facie opinion that income had escaped assessment.
The Court held that the basic requirement of s. 147 of the Act that AO
11
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
should apply independent mind in order to form reasons to believe that
income had escaped assessment had not been fulfilled.
15. The ld. AR submitted that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.
reported in 396 ITR 5 (Del), where information was received from
investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation
entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information
could not be said to be tangible material as per se and, thus,
reassessment on said basis was not justified. Finally, the ld. AR
submitted that the impugned initiation of reassessment proceedings,
notice and all consequent proceedings and orders are not valid and bad
in law therefore, the same may kindly be quashed.
16. Replying to the above, the ld. DR submitted that the copy of
proforma for obtaining approval u/s. 151 of the Act and reasons
recorded by the AO are the internal departmental communication
between the PCIT and ACIT and the PCIT being administrative head
and senior to the ACIT has power to peruse the approval u/s. 151 of the
Act and his sings thereon does not make the same as mechanical and
without application of mind and the same cannot be termed or alleged
as invalid or bad in law. The ld. DR submitted that in column 12 of
approval the ACIT Shri Sarabjeet Singh has granted valid approval by
12
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
noting that "Yes, I am satisfied" which is sufficient to comply with the
provisions of s. 151 of the Act. He also submitted that if there is any
defect therein the same is rectifiable u/s. 292B of the Act and thus, the
reassessment proceedings and orders cannot be challenged on this
count. The ld. DR further submitted that the format/ proforma for
granting approval u/s. 151 of the Act has been designed by the
Department and there is no role of AO in framing and designing the
same and the allegation of non-application of mind on the basis of such
proforma or words used by the approving authority cannot be made.
17. The ld. DR submitted that the team of Revenue officers work
under the supervision and guidance of PCIT and the Department is very
careful about the compliance of the provision of the Act as well as
directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court and CBDT
Circulars and also towards working of the Revenue Officers in the cases
of initiation of reassessment proceedings and framing of reassessment
orders. The ld. DR submitted that the proforma of approval u/s. 151 of
the Act is being followed all over India and the ACIT applied his mind to
the all material placed before him by the AO prior to granting approval
u/s. 151 of the Act in column 12 of the proforma. Therefore, allegations
made by the ld. AR are not sustainable and tenable and the same may
kindly be dismissed.
13
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
18. Placing rejoinder to the above, the ld. AR submitted that in the
reasons para 6 the information of DDIT (Investigation) has been given
and reference of various entry providers such as Shri Himanshu Verma,
Shri Praveen Aggarwal etc. who are engaged in providing
accommodation entries through dummy companies with dummy
directors. The ld. AR submitted that in the table given in para 3 is taken
along with para 6 of the reasons recorded then, it is clear that the names
of companies are 13 and above named two persons at serial No. 11 &
12 have been noted and there is no name of entry provider in the other
11 columns and there is no link in the reasons recorded with regard to
these 11 companies. The ld. AR submitted that these facts clearly show
that the AO has acted on suspicion only and not on any credible input
available to him through DDIT (investigation) information or otherwise on
the basis of any exercise or application of mind by himself. Therefore,
the reassessment proceedings and all consequent orders are not
sustainable and bad in law. Reiterating his earlier arguments, the ld. AR
vehemently pointed out that the approval/sanction given in para 12 of
the proforma is not a valid sanction as per ratio of the various decisions
including decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case
of S. Goyanka Lime and chemicals Ltd. (supra), which has been upheld
by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing SLP of the Revenue reported
in 237 Taxman 378 (SC) therefore, initiation of reassessment
14
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, notice u/s. 148 of the Act, reassessment
proceedings and all consequent orders may kindly be quashed.
19. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, first of all, we
may point out that from the proforma of approval u/s. 151 of the Act
placed at pgs. 16-17 of the assessee paper book, it is clear that in
column 12 the ACIT has granted approval for the issue of notice u/s. 148
of the Act by writing that "Yes, I am satisfied" which is not sufficient to
comply with the requirement of s. 151 of the Act. As per ratio of the
decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. M/s. S.
Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (supra), where the JCIT/ACIT has only
recorded "Yes, I am satisfied" then, it has to be held that the approving
authority has recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without
application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the
Act for reopening of assessment and in this situation initiation of
reassessment proceedings and reopening of assessment has to be held
as invalid and bad in law. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the
reopening of assessment and notice u/s. 148 of the Act are bad in law
and consequently all subsequent proceedings in pursuant thereto are
also bad in law and the same cannot be held as valid and sustainable.
20. So far as legal contention of the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee
regarding non-application of mind by the AO, while recording reasons for
15
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
reopening of assessment, is concerned from careful perusal and reading
of the three pages of reasons recorded, we observe that in first four
paras the AO has noted facts of the information received from DDIT
(investigation), Faridabad, further, in para 6 modus operandi of entry
providers has been noted thereafter, in para 7 & 8, it has been arisen
that either during survey or post survey proceedings the assessee
company has not submitted satisfactory explanation to prove identity,
genuineness and creditworthiness of share capital/premium introducers
and thus, the same is from paper companies of entry operator and then,
he recorded satisfaction that the assessee company taken
bogus/accommodation entries. Thereafter, the AO in last para 9 & 10,
without applying mind to the information received from the Investigation
Wing states/writes that he has reason to believe that the income has
escaped assessment. The text and words used by the AO in the
reasons recorded for reopening of assessment clearly show that the AO
proceeded to initiatory assessment proceedings and reopening of
assessment without having any valid satisfaction and only on the basis
of borrowed satisfaction as there was no independent application of
mind by the AO to the tangible material received from Investigation Wing
which could form the valid basis and reason to believe that income has
escaped assessment.
16
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
21. In view of decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of
PCIT vs. Meenakshi Oversaes (supra), PCIT vs. G&G Pharma (I) Ltd.
(supra) and decision in the case of PCIT vs. RMG Polyviny (I) Ltd.
(supra), where information was received from investigation wing that
assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further
inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information could not be said to be
tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not
justified. In the case of Meenakshi Overseas (supra), their lordship
speaking for the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that where the
reasons recorded by the AO failed to demonstrate the link between the
tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income
has escaped assessment then, indeed it is a borrowed satisfaction and
the conclusion of the AO based on reproduction of conclusion drawn in
the investigation report cannot be held as valid reason to believe after
application of mind. In this judgment their lordship also held that where
nothing from the report of investigation wing is set out to enable the
reader to appreciate how the conclusions flow there from then there is
no independent application of mind by the AO to the tangible material
which form the basis of the reasons to believe that income has escaped
assessment.
17
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
22. In the present case, as we have noted above, the conclusion
recorded by the AO in para 9 & 10 of the reasons is based on the
information received from the director of investigation wing and the AO
without making any effort to examine and discuss the material received
from the Investigation Wing and without application of the mind to the
same formed a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.
This shows that the AO proceeded to initiate reassessment proceedings
on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without any application of mind and
exercise on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the
Department. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the AO
proceeded to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and
to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of borrowed satisfaction
and without any application of mind and examination of the so called
material and information received from the investigation wing to
establish any nexus, even prima facie, with the such information.
Therefore, in our considered opinion the initiation of reassessment
proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, notice u/s. 148 of the Act, reassessment
proceedings and all consequent proceeding and orders, including
impugned reassessment and first appellate order, are bad in law and
thus, not sustainable and we hold so. Accordingly, on the basis of
foregoing discussion, grounds No.2, 3, 4 and additional ground of the
18
ITA No.132/Del/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10)
M/s. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
assessee are allowed and impugned proceedings, notice u/s. 148 of the
Act and all consequent orders are quashed.
Other ground of assessee on merits:
23. Since, by the earlier part of this order we have quashed initiation
of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, notice u/s. 148 of the
Act, reassessment proceedings and impugned reassessment & first
appellate order therefore, other grounds of the assessee on merits
become academic and infructuous and hence, we are not adjudicating
the same as having become infructuous.
24. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 06th August, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(. . ) ( )
(N.K.BILLAIYA) (C.M.GARG)
rbbmenatna ncoccA/ /Judicial Member
/ Surat; Dated : 06 August, 2018
th
EDN
/Copy of the Order is forwarded to :
1. /The Appellant; 2. /The Respondent; 3. () /The
CIT(A)-38, New Delhi; 4. Prl. CIT, New Delhi; 5. ,
, / DR, ITAT, New Delhi; 6. / Guard file.
|