ORDER

PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

The aforesaid Departmental Appeals and Cross Objections by two different Assessees are directed against the different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak, Dated 9th March, 2015 for the assessment year 2007 2008.

2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material made available by both parties on record. The appeals are decided as under.

ITA.No.2846/Del./2015 & CO.No.333/Del./2015

M/s. KLF Food (India) Ltd., - A.Y. 2007-2008 :

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the basis of information received by Assessing Officer from DIT (Inv.)- II, New Delhi, Dated 15th March, 2013 that the assessee has taken accommodation entries amounting to Rs 1.50 crore in the shape of share capital from various companies, in order to verify the genuineness of the said investors, notice under section 148 was issued on 28th March, 2013. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the share capital received from 07 Investors. The Assessing Officer after considering the material on record, in the light of report of Investigation Wing, made the addition of Rs.1.50 crores on account of unexplained credit.

3.1. The assessee challenged the addition before the the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) noted that all the investor companies are assessed to tax under section 153C/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and nothing adverse was found against the assessee during the course of assessment. Therefore, addition was deleted.

3.2. The Revenue is in appeal challenging the deletion of addition of Rs.1.50 crores and assessee in the cross-objection challenged initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.3. Before considering the issue on merit, we proceed to decide the legal issue i.e., reopening of assessment in the matter. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that validity of the reassessment proceedings is to be determined with reference to the reasons recorded under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He has referred to PB 23, which is reasons for reopening of assessment. PB-44 is assessment order passed under section 143(3), Dated 8th December, 2009 for assessment year under appeal i.e., 2007-2008, in which the Assessing Officer has examined the impugned issue of share capital and share premium. He has submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and the Assessing Officer did not verify the return of income, in which all the particulars on account of share capital/ premium have been disclosed by the assessee to the Revenue Authorities. The Assessing Officer did not apply his mind and that the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons on borrowed satisfaction. There is no allegation in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, in case where the original assessment has been framed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal and invalid. He has relied upon Judgment in the case of Viniyas Finance and Investment (P) Ltd., 357 ITR 646 and Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT ITA.No.2527/Del./2017. He has submitted that since initiation of reassessment proceedings are based on non- application of mind and reasons are recorded on borrowed satisfaction, therefore, reassessment is invalid. In support of this proposition, he has relied upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of G & G Pharma India Limited 384 ITR 147 (Del.) and PCIT vs., Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and PCIT vs., RMG Poly vinyl 396 ITR 5 (Del.). He has submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and no particulars of credit have been mentioned in the reasons. The reasons also did not say if assessment have already been framed u