Uma Strips Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
In this case ITAT find that there is no live link presented by the AO between the material available with him i.e. the report of the investigation and to reason to belief that the assessee has tried to evade the assessment for the particular year in question. Simply stating and doubting that the assessee is involved in obtaining accommodation entries without providing proof, reason, information to back-up the claim cannot be considered as a valid reason to issue notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. There is no independent application of mind that could be deciphered from the reasons recorded. There is no reference to examination of the returns filed and whether the entries taken or on account of bogus capital, a balance sheet item or on account of bogus sales or purchases on account of revenue account. As per the record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to belief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment.
Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. 395 ITR 677, G&G Pharma 384 ITR 147, Sabh Infrastructure 398 ITR 198 and Pr. CIT Vs. RMC Potyvinyl (I) Ltd. 396 ITR 5 wherein the Delhi High Court has held that observations of the Investigation Wing should not be treated as conclusions without the AO independently verifying the same, in the absence of which the Hon’ble Court held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law.
