Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that the sanction was granted u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act by the Competent Authority being Pr. CIT though the file had to be moved through the official higher are key and, therefore, the ITO has to send the file to the Office of the Commissioner rooted through Addl. CIT. He has further submitted that the Pr. CIT has recorded his independent satisfaction based on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, even if the satisfaction recorded by the ACIT is not valid due to the reasons that the Addl. CIT was not competent to grant the sanction. It would not affect the validity of the approval granted by the Pr. CIT. Thus, the Ld. DR has Treta E Technologies Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT./ I.T.A.No.9734/Del/2019/A.Y.2010-11 submitted that this is not the case of grant the sanction by unauthorized Income Tax Authority but the file was moved through the office of the ACIT and in this process the Addl. CIT has also recorded his satisfaction. As regards the objection of mechanical approval granted by the Pr. CIT the Ld. DR has submitted that the Pr. CIT has duly recorded his satisfaction in clear terms and, therefore, it cannot be regarded as grant of approval/sanction mechanically. He has further contended that the satisfaction of Pr. CIT is not require to be in elaborate words in support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of E-X Seed Technologies & Device Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 422 ITR 355. Thus, the Ld. DR has submitted that while granting sanction u/s 151 the Pr. CIT was not required to provide elaborate reasoning to arrive at the finding of approval when he was satisfied with the reasons of reopening recorded by the Assessing Officer. He has pointed out that the assessee is a non filer of Income Tax Return and only on the basis of the information received by the Assessing Officer as contained in Form No. 26AS. The Assessing Officer has formed the belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded by the AO has clearly makes out the receipt by the assessee on account of contract payments which were subjected to TDS u/s 194C as reflected in Form 26AS. The amount as shown in Form No. 26 is huge of more than Rs. 65 lakhs. Therefore, prima facie the reasons recorded by Treta E Technologies Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT./ I.T.A.No.9734/Del/2019/A.Y.2010-11 the Assessing Officer based on tangible material on which the Pr. CIT was satisfied while granting satisfaction.

15. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 14.11.2017 and a copy of which is available in the Paper Book at page no. 8. This is also undisputed fact that the assessee has filed the return of income online and, therefore, the same is accessable to the Tax Authorities at moment it is filed. The Assessing officer had issued the notice u/s 143(2) on 16.11.2017 which is certainly after the return of income filed by the assessee. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the assessment was reopened due to the reasons that the assessee has not filed any returned income u/s 139 and Form No. 26AS shows the receipt of Rs. 65,02,171/- as contract Treta E Technologies Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT./ I.T.A.No.9734/Del/2019/A.Y.2010-11 receipt subjected to TDS u/s 194C of the Act from M/s E-X Seed Technologies & Device P. Ltd. which is a party to a contract dated 6th August, 2009 entered into for having business/contract transactions then the details available in Form 26AS would constitute an incriminating material disclosing an income escaped assessment. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) cannot be said to be without verification of the return of income filed by the assessee because the AO had to examine the issue which is subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. Hence, we do not find any merit or substance in the additional ground no. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee. The same are dismissed.

16. Ground no. 2 is regarding the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 65,02,171/-. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the addition without verification of the correct details. He has referred to the bank account statement of the assessee and submitted that a cheque of Rs. 10 lakhs issued by the M/s E-X Seed Technologies & Device P. Ltd. on 07.11.2009 and, therefore, the assessee has not received any amount towards contract received as shown in the Form No. 26AS. So far as the dishonor of cheque is concerned he has also referred to a police complaint filed by the assessee against the said company for giving false information in Form No. 26AS. Therefore, the Ld. AR has submitted that the AO has made the addition of the amount which is not an income of the assessee.

17. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that as per the agreement dated 6th August, 2009 there is a payment schedule and accordingly, the assessee received two cheques from the other party of the agreement. Even if the cheque issued by the contracting party got dishonored the amount becomes due and will be income of the assessee on mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

18. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has made the addition based Treta E Technologies Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT./ I.T.A.No.9734/Del/2019/A.Y.2010-11 on the details of payment reflected in the Form 26AS. The assessee has contended before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) that the payment shown in Form 26AS was not received by the assessee from M/s E-X Seed Technologies & Device P. .Ltd. as the cheque issued by the said company of Rs. 10 lakhs got dishonored and assessee has filed a police complaint. So far as the dishonor of the cheque is concerned the same is reflected in the bank account statement of the assessee and, therefore, we find that in the absence of any other amount received by the assessee or any settlement between the parties the dishonor of cheques would certainly lead to termination of the agreement between the parties which is one of the conditions as provided in the clause of the agreement. Even as per the agreement in which Rs. 20 lakhs was to be paid by E-X Seed Technologies & Device P. Ltd. to the assessee and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 65,02,171/- is not supported by the terms and conditions of the agreement. There may be some oral understanding and agreement between the parties but as per the agreement dated 6th August, 2009 the total amount which was to be paid by the said company to the assessee was Rs. 20 lakhs. It is also a term of the agreement that in case of default in payment by E-X Seed Technologies & Device P. Ltd. the contract shall be terminated. However, the complete facts reflecting the true state-of-affairs between the parties have not come on record. The Assessing Officer has not conducted a proper enquiry during the assessment proceedings to ascertain the correct facts regarding the Treta E Technologies Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT./ I.T.A.No.9734/Del/2019/A.Y.2010-11 amount reflected in Form 26AS even, during the remand proceedings as directed by the CIT(A) nothing has come out conclusively. Therefore, it is apparent that the addition made by the AO is solely based on the details of Form 26AS and not on the basis of any facts detected as a result of an enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that this matter requires a proper verification and enquiry to ascertain the correct facts regarding the actual amount received by the assessee from the other contracting party namely E-X Seed Technologies & Device P. Ltd. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after conducting a proper enquiry on this point. Needless to say the assessee be granted and appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order.