Case Law Details
Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
MULTIPLICITY OF ERRORS IN REASONS MAKE REASSESSMENT VOID
The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that 11 entries have been shown in the information and it can be seen that there are repetition of same entries/amounts and the Assessing Officer has, in fact, at para -6 of his order considered only 4 entries where total unsecured loan amount comes to Rs. 75 lakhs and information is in respect of amount of Rs. 2.05 crores.
The ld. counsel for the assessee also argued that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act as it can be seen from the reasons for reopening assessment and additions made in the assessment order dated 18.12.2018.
We have carefully gone through the decisions relied upon by the first appellate authority. We find that in none of the decisions the issue was of multiplicity of the entries in the information received by the Assessing Officer which formed the basis for reopening the assessment. In all the decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, the issue was whether the information received amounts to tangible material evidence for reopening the assessment. Whereas the facts of the case in hand relates to the very information itself which contains 11 entries as mentioned elsewhere, where the total amount of escaped income is mentioned at Rs. 2.05 crores which is part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
