ORDER 

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1. This is an appeal filed by assessee against order of LD CIT (A) 19, New Delhi dated 31.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2007-08. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. The ld Assessing Officer has erred in law by initiating proceedings u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as all information/details were available during original assessments and were examined by Ld. AO during proceedings. No new information/material came to his knowledge to reopen case as provided in law:

a. The proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law and void-ab -initio.

b. The Learned Assessing officer has erred in law in assuming that appellant company was aware of reasons to believe to reopen case.

c. The Learned Assessing officer is not justified in providing reasons to believe to reopen case to appellant company in last week of March; thereby not providing sufficient time to appellant company to support its claim.

d. The Learned Assessing officer was supplied with all information/documents in reply to proceedings u/s 154/155 and hence all material was available before Learned Assessing Officer and he could have taken action then only. The issue of notice u/s 147/148 is therefore on account of change of opinion only as no new material had come before Ld. AO.

e. The Learned Assessing officer has acted without jurisdiction by reopening case of appellant company u/s 147, when assessment was made under section 143(3) and in absence of any tangible material available with Assessing Officer to form requisite belief regarding escapement of income.

f. The Learned Assessing officer has erred in law by passing assessment order u/s 147/143(3) without giving appellant company sufficient time to support its claim after passing order disposing off objections filed by appellant company for re-assessment proceedings u/s 147.

2. The order passed by Learned Assessing officer disposing off objections filed by appellant company for re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 is void, illegal, bad in law and unethical and should be quashed:

a. The Learned Assessing officer has erred in law by disposing off objections raised by appellant company without recording any specific reason.

b. The order disposing off objections filed by appellant company for re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 was served upon appellant company on 23rd March 2013 i.e. even after assessment order u/s 148 was served upon assessee.

c. The Learned Assessing has passed order without considering grounds of objection as raised by appellant company. The Ld. AO has no where rejected objections raised by appellant company and instead passed order on his own presumptions.

d. The Learned Assessing officer has erred in law by relying on case laws, facts of which are completely different from facts of appellant company and on contrary support claim of appellant that proceedings u/s 147 cannot be initiated as no new facts have come to notice of assessing officer other than those which were submitted at time of original assessment by appellant company.

3. The Learned Assessing officer has erred in law while initiating proceedings u/s 147 parallelly when proceedings u/s 154 were pending on same issue and were not concluded especially when no fresh material /information was in possession of Learned Assessing officer.

4. The order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) is bad in law and against facts and circumstances of case and same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without confronting any adverse material and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of case in making an addition of Rs. 10,865,713/- on account of advances written off same as an expense of capital nature.

6. The Ld AO has erred in law and facts by not allowing claim of current year business loss of Rs. 312,S68/-while making above additions.

7. The Ld. AO has erred in law In initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act 1961.”

2. Brief