2014 (12) TMI 1282 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - share application received by the assessee is not a genuine transaction but is on account of accommodation entries received thus addition u/s 68 - Held that - Reasons are nothing but the summary of statement of Shri Giriraj Vijayvargiya during the search as well as the assessment proceedings of Shri Giriraj. It is manifest from these reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that four concerns are mentioned which are controlled by Shri Vikas Berlia in which the allegation of giving accommodation entries in the shape of share application money was made by Shri Giriraj in his statement. There is no allegation of AO that the share applicants of the assessee have any connection with Shri Giriraj Vijayvargiya or with Shri Vikas Berlia. Once these share applicant companies are unrelated/independent parties and have no connection either with Shri Giriraj or with Shri Vikas Berlia then there was nothing came to the possession of the Assessing Officer to believe that the share application money received by the assessee is bogus transaction and consequently the income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. From the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, there is no indication about the relation between the share application money and the bogus accommodation entries given by Shri Giriraj. The sufficiency of evidence or material for forming the belief is not open to scrutiny but the existence of belief is must for a valid exercise of power. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer do not indicate even a remote nexus between the application money received by the assessee with the alleged accommodation entries provided by Shri Giriraj Vijayvargiya or the alleged beneficiary of the accommodation entries. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable opportunity of being heard.
2. Reopening of assessment on a non-existent entity.
3. Validity of reopening the assessment.
4. Reopening of assessment barred by limitation.
5. Assessment of income at a higher amount than returned.
6. Addition on account of unexplained share application money under Section 68.
7. Allegation of bogus share applications based on a third-party statement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reasonable Opportunity of Being Heard:
The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

2. Reopening of Assessment on a Non-existent Entity:
The assessee did not press this ground either, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

3. Validity of Reopening the Assessment:
The original return was processed under Section 143(1). The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on a search action under Section 132 involving Shri Giriraj Vijayvargiya, who admitted to giving accommodation entries. The AO believed the companies controlled by Shri Vikas Berlia introduced unaccounted money as bogus share capital. The assessee argued that the reopening was based on conjecture without tangible material linking the share application money to the alleged accommodation entries. The Tribunal found no connection between the share application money received by the assessee and the alleged bogus transactions, deeming the reopening invalid.

4. Reopening of Assessment Barred by Limitation:
The assessee contended that reopening after four years was impermissible without any allegation of failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal noted the absence of any material indicating that the share application money was linked to unaccounted income, thus supporting the assessee's contention.

5. Assessment of Income at a Higher Amount than Returned:
The AO assessed the income at Rs. 19,57,600 against the returned income of Rs. 87,602. However, since the reopening itself was found invalid, this ground became infructuous.

6. Addition on Account of Unexplained Share Application Money under Section 68:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 18,70,000 under Section 68 for unexplained share application money. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the share application money to accommodation entries, invalidating the addition.

7. Allegation of Bogus Share Applications Based on a Third-party Statement:
The AO relied on the statement of Shri Giriraj Vijayvargiya, who admitted to providing accommodation entries. However, the Tribunal found no connection between the share applicants of the assessee and Shri Giriraj or Shri Vikas Berlia, rendering the allegation baseless.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessments as invalid due to the lack of tangible material linking the share application money to alleged bogus transactions. Consequently, other grounds raised by the assessee became infructuous, and the appeals were allowed.