- (1.) THE assessee is in appeal before us and challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as "ITAT") dated 30.06.2014 in ITA 410/Del/2013.
(2.) THE assessee was subjected to re -assessment proceedings; the initiation of which has been challenged under Section 147. The second ground urged is with respect to the absence of notice under Section 143 (2) and the third is with respect to the merits of addition of Rs.4,84,000/ -.
(3.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that for AY 2008 -09, the assessee had reported an income of Rs.444/ -. This was processed under Section 143 (1). Upon an enquiry and investigation report, the AO issued notice under Section 148, doubting a transaction based upon the transfer of shares and purchase by two subsequent transferees i.e. Raghubir Singh and Simranjeet Kaur. The assessment was completed with the addition of that amount to the assessee's final income. The matter was carried in appeal unsuccessfully to the CIT (A), and later, to the ITAT as well. The assessee was unable to persuade both the authorities to accept its submissions that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction. On the merits as well, the ITAT confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) that the amount had to be added to the assessee's income and brought to tax. Learned counsel urges that re -assessment proceedings were unjustified and emphasized that the approval, in the circumstances of the case, was accorded mechanically. He highlighted that the "reasons to believe", forming the basis for reopening of assessment, did not disclose any particulars as to how the information triggering notice was received and who furnished that information. It was next urged that the AO did not even issue notice under Section 143 (2), but rather completed the assessment. Highlighting that absence of notice vitiates the entire proceedings, learned counsel states that both the CIT (A) and the ITAT erred in not returning the findings on this aspect. Arguing on the merits, learned counsel submitted that the additions under Section 68 were unwarranted because the identity of the purchasers of the shares had been established. In fact, the AO had noted that both the purchasers had filed returns and the assessee deposited the amounts received in the bank. Learned counsel complained that if the findings of the ITAT are not reversed, all the assessees in the like circumstances would be placed under an unbearable burden of proving not only the genuineness of the transaction, but also the genuineness of the transaction which preceded the one in question.;