ITO Vs Anushreya Investment Private Limited (ITAT Kolkata)
Revenue filed appeal against deletion of ₹3,32,62,350 added u/s 68 as alleged bogus short-term capital loss. Assessee, without filing cross-appeal, invoked Rule 27 challenging the validity of reassessment u/s 147/143(3) on the ground that the very notice u/s 148 (27.03.2018) was void, being founded on (i) wrong & vague reasons, and (ii) invalid mechanical approval u/s 151.
AO recorded wrong facts & vague reasons
AO reopened assessment alleging bogus STCL of ₹2,95,99,250 in JMD Telefilms and ₹36,63,100 in Nivyah Infrastructure. Assessee demonstrated that:
- ₹2,95,99,250 was not the claimed loss, but only the purchase value; actual loss was ₹2,60,64,495, duly disclosed in ROI.
- ₹36,63,100 was not a loss, but the sale consideration; actual loss was ₹55,66,855.
All figures relied upon by AO were factually incorrect, although correct records were available on assessment file.
Thus, reasons were scanty, vague, ambiguous, and reflected total non-application of mind, as also held in the coordinate bench ruling Sudha Surana.
Approval u/s 151 held mechanical
The approval granted by PCIT on 23.03.2018 merely stated:
“Yes, I am satisfied. It is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148.” with no reasoning whatsoever.
Tribunal held that such rubber-stamp approval does not satisfy section 151, relying on Delhi HC jurisprudence including:
