9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer the moment he issues notice under section 148. The assessment is re-opened when notice is issued under section 148. It is for the completion of the assessment the notice under section 148 should be served on the assessee. From these judicial pronouncements referred to above it is clear that where the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were not concluded to a logical end the Assessing Officer cannot issue fresh reassessment notice under section 148. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessments for assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 framed with reference to the notice issued under section 148 on 24-11-2006 during the pendency of assessment are bad in law. Entry providing business - commission on accommodation entries by way of purchase and sale bills to the needy parties - AO has simply taken all cash entries in the bank account and the total of the same had been assessed as income from undisclosed sources - while taking the above entries, the AO had not considered withdrawals made by the assessee before the cash deposits in the bank account. - Held that:- assessee was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in providing reasons for reassessment and opening for reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 3.1 The facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee, an Individual, in the relevant assessment years was engaged in the business of commission agent (Pacca and Katcha Arhatia) of food-grains in the name and style of M/s. Rahul Enterprises as its Proprietor. The assessee filed returns of income for assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05 as under:- Asst. Year Date of filing return Income 2000-01 30-10-2000 Rs. 1,41,300 2001-02 22-10-2001 Rs. 1,45,603 2002-03 28-10-2002 Rs. 1,67,378 2003-04 6-11-2003 Rs. 1,97,590 2004-05 1-11-2004 Rs. 1,11,910 3.2 The Investigation Wing of the Department was investigating information that certain food grain merchants were making purchases of damaged food grains in large quantities from Food Corporation of India and other allied Govt. agencies. The damaged food grains so purchased were converted into improved quality by sortex process and sold at a much higher price than sold to cattle-fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of survey and post survey operations, the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-17 New Delhi initiated assessment/reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information gathered during survey and subsequent enquiries completed assessment by making two additions. The first addition is in respect of commission income which has been estimated by the Assessing Officer at the rate of 1.75 per cent on declared sales. The other addition is in respect of cash deposits treating cash deposits in the banks for the purpose of accommodation entries pertaining to bogus purchases and sales for and on behalf of other concerns. 6. On appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals) the assessee challenged the assessment order on assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 as well as on merits. As regards the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147, the assessee submitted that the assessments made under section 147 read with section 143(3) were void and invalid as the same were against the provisions of law and barred by limitations. The Assessing Officer had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there was no irregularity in assessment procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer. Further the assessee had attended the reassessment proceedings. Hence no irregularity was committed by the Assessing Officer in making assessment. He accordingly rejected the legal ground raised by the assessee in respect of reopening of assessment. 8.1 Before us the ld. AR of the assessee, Shri Ved Jain, submitted that the assessee had obtained copies of notices under section 148 as well as reasons recorded for reopening of the assessments on the basis of application made by the assessee. The reasons for reopening of assessments for assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05 were recorded on 22-9-2005 and are placed on record. The notices under section 148 dated 23-9-2005 were issued by Speed Post for these years. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer on 25-9-2006 had again reopened the assessments for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 after obtaining the approval of Addl. CIT by issue of notices under section 148 dated 25-9-2006. He further submitted that the assessment for assessment year 2001-02 was again reopened by issuing notice under section 148 on 24-11-2006 after recording reasons, which are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 148 for this assessment year was issued on 23-9-2005. Hence it is wrong on the part of ld. AR of the assessee to argue that assessment year 2000-01 notice under section 148 was issued on 23-9-2005. She has further submitted that when notices under section 143(2) dated 31-10-2006 were served on the assessee on 6-11-2006, the assessee on the backside of notices had written notes that no notice had been received by him prior to 6-10-2006 and to this effect the assessee had filed an affidavit on 11-10-2006. Since there was no proof of service with the Department and in the absence of any proof of service of notice under section 148 with the Department or with the assessee, the entire 147 proceedings were jeopardized. Hence the issue of notices under section 148 dated 25-9-2006 were necessitated. She further submitted that service of notice under section 148 is a condition precedent to validity of any reassessment to be made under section 147 and therefore, the service of notice under section 148 is the foundation of jurisdiction of the assessing authority. She placed reliance on the following decisions for this proposition:- (i) Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be recorded by the officer himself before he issues notice under section 148. There is a time gap of almost one year between formation of belief and issue of notice under section 148 but since the Assessing Officer as on 22-9-2005 and 25-9-2006 was the same, the initiation of proceedings assessment under section 147 cannot be declared bad in law. Had there been change in Assessing Officer it would have definitely been fatal to the initiation of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act for simple reason that recording of reasons and issue of notice under section 148 should be done by the same Assessing Officer and not by two different Assessing Officers. In such situation the requirement of section 148(2) that 'the Assessing Officer shall before issuing any notice under section 148 record his reasons for doing so' would not have been satisfied. There is no lime-limit prescribed in law as to how much time before such reasons should be recorded. The additional Commissioner of Income-tax has accorded his sanction for reopening of assessment on the basis of reasons so recorded on 22-9-2005. Hence the requirement of section 151(2) of the Act is also satisfied. Further, the cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, there is no dispute about the fact that notice under section 148 was issued through speed post vide No. EE-25554607, dated 26-9-2006. Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 prescribes the modes of service of a notice either by post or in the way in which a summons issued by a court can be served under the Code of Civil Procedure. Under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887 there is a presumption of effective Service if the notice was properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post; and the mere fact that the physical delivery of notice was made to a person other than the addressee, who had no authority to receive the notice on the assessee's behalf, would not be sufficient to prove that there had been no proper service. It would depend on circumstances of each case whether this presumption has been rebutted by proof of further facts and the onus of proving such further facts is on the assessee. In the case before us the notice issued by Assessing Officer for assessment year 2000-01 had not been received back and since the assessee had not brought any material on record to rebut the presumption of effective service under section 27 of the General Clauses Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-sheet entry, Shri P.N. Chawla, arranged the photo-copier machine at 3.00 PM for getting the photo-stat copies of the impounded documents. On these dates, the Assessing Officer directed the authorized representative of the assessee to produce Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg. 15. The Assessing Officer vide his letter dated F. No. DCIT/CC-17/2006-07/15, dated 18-4-2006 [placed at page 153 of assessment year 2005-06] addressed to Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg at 250, 1st Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi (through Shri P. N. Chawla, the counsel for the assessee) intimated fixing the date of hearing for assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06 on 24-4-2006. In this letter it was mentioned that enough adjournments have already been granted and the assessments for assessment years up to 2004-05 were going to be barred by limitation that year itself. In response to this Shri P.N. Chawla, Advocate, vide his letter dated 22-4-2006 (placed at page 148) informed the Assessing Officer that the notice for assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06 fixing the case for hearing on 24-4-2006 was received by him on 21-4-2006 at 4.00 PM and it was not possible to prepare the details in such a short time. It was also stated that S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) on 31-10-2006 addressed at D-16/406, Sector : 7, Rohini, Delhi fixing the case for hearing on 10-11-2006 at 12 Noon. These notices were served on the assessee by the Inspector on 6-11-2006. On the back-side of the notices the assessee made a note as under:- "Mujhe Aaj se pehle koi notice nahin mila hai. Yeh pehla notice dinank 6/11/2006 ko prapt kar raha hoon Sd S.K. Garg 6-11-2006." 17. The assessee also filed affidavit on 10-11-2006 wherein he has denied to have received any notice prior to notice dated 6-11-2006. The affidavit is lying in assessment folder, for assessment year 2005-06 (Volume 2) at page 19 and reads as under :- "Affidavit I Sanjay Kumar Garg, S/o. Shri Ram Chander Garg, R/o. C-65, 1st Floor, Sangam Apptt., Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi-85, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows :- 1. That the deponent is Proprietor of M/s. Garg Sales Corporation, 2650, 1st Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi-6. 2. That the deponent is in receipt of Notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2000-01 to assessment year 2005-06 on 6-11-2006 from DCIT, Central Circle-9, N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21-9-2006 on Smt. Gita Garg, the wife of the assessee. Thus the contents of affidavit are contrary to facts and the conduct of the assessee and hence cannot be relied upon. Therefore, as held in assessment year 2000-01 above there is a presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887 of effective Service of notices issued under section 148 of Act on the assessee. Hence, we are unable to agree with the contention of ld. CIT (DR) as also of the assessee that notices under section 148 were not served on the assessee. 19. Based on the noting made on the back-side of notice on 6-11-2006 and affidavit dated 10-11-2006, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 and issued notice under section 148 on 24-11-2006 for assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-9, recorded reasons, which are identical to the reasons recorded on 22-9-2005. Notices under section 148 were served on the assessee on 5-12-2006 for all the four years. The Assessing Officer completed assessments on 24-12-2007 under section 143(3)/147 of the Act. 20. In these assessment years the returns of income originally filed were proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Sub-section (2) of section 153 deals with the time-limit in respect of assessments made under section 147. Sub-section (2) of section 153 reads as under:- "(2) No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served : Provided that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the 1st day of April, 2000, such assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 2002 : Provided further that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 2005, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "one year", the words "nine months" had been substituted :" 23. From the above cited provisions of law it is clear that for assumption of jurisdiction under section 147, the Assessing Officer is required to issue notice within the time-limit specified under section 149 of the Act. However, provisions of section 148 make it mandatory to serve the notice before assessment or reassessment or re-computa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme of Income-tax Act, 1961 so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different from that of 1922 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between "issue of notice" and "service of notice" under the 1961 Act. Section 149 of the 1961 Act, which provides the period of limitation, categorically prescribes that no notice under section 148 shall be issued after the period prescribed has lapsed. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Income-tax Officer to proceed to reassess. Section 148(1) provides for service of notice as a condition precedent to making the order of assessment. Service under 1961 Act is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction on the ITO; it is a condition precedent only to the making of the order of assessment. It was held that the notice was not barred by limitation and the ITO had jurisdiction to complete the assessment. 25. In CIT v. Sheo Kumari Devi [1986] 157 ITR 13/24 Taxman 77 (Pat.)(FB) Hon'ble Patna High Court has occasion to examine the difference between the words "issued" and "served". The words "issued" and "served" are not synonyms. Their plain dictionary meaning runs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruse proposition that the word "issued" de hors its context must always mean "issued" and "served" in every statute or in section 149 of the Act. 26. Thus from the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (supra) and Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Sheo Kumari Devi (supra) the law is settled that term "issue" appearing in section 149 of the Act cannot mean as "issue and serve". The jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to assess/reassess the escaped income the moment the notice under section 148 is issued. Service under the Act is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer but a condition precedent only to the making of the order of assessment. Therefore the contention of Ld. CIT (DR) that without service of notices under section 148 the Assessing Officer is not vested with the power to assess/reassess the escaped income and assessment proceedings were jeopardized holds no water and deserves to be rejected. 27. It is a settled law that the expression "issue" means the notice should leave the custody of the Assessing Officer. The postal Department is not agent of the Income-tax Department. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransferred to Central Circle-9 from Central Circle-17. On this ground alone the issue of third notice under section 148 for assessment 2001-02 is bad in law and assessment for this assessment cannot be sustained. Be it as it may the fact remains that for assessment year 2001-02 the Assessing Officer had issued three notices under section 148 i.e., on 23-9-2005, 25-9-2006 and 24-11-2006. For other assessment years two notices have issued i.e., on 23-9-2005 and 24-11-2006. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyay (supra) the jurisdiction stand vested in the Assessing Officer to assess/reassess the escaped income on 23-9-2005. The assessment powers thus vested in the Assessing Officer have not been terminated either by way of assessment or by way of dropping of assessment proceedings initiated under section 147. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had issued notices under section 148 on 25-9-2006 24-11-2006 for assessment year 2001-02 and on 24-11-2006 for assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 during pendency of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 30. Now let us examine as to whether issue of notice under section 148 during the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the same are pending, a fresh notice cannot be issued under the same provision. In the case of Srinivasa Computers Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 107 ITD 357 (Chennai) it has been held that the Assessing Officer can issue any number of notices under section 148 provided conditions stipulated in section 147 are satisfied; same is within the period specified under section 149 read with section 151; and no proceedings are pending either by way of original assessment or by way of re-assessment. The assessment is re-opened when notice is issued under section 148. It is for the completion of the assessment the notice under section 148 should be served on the assessee. From these judicial pronouncements referred to above it is clear that where the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were not concluded to a logical end the Assessing Officer cannot issue fresh reassessment notice under section 148. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessments for assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 framed with reference to the notice issued under section 148 on 24-11-2006 during the pendency of assessment are bad in law. We have in earlier paragraphs have held that notices issued unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the proceedings under section 147 was bad in law and should be quashed on the ground of non-service of notice under section 148 to him. The AAC did not accept this contention and disposed off the matter on the merits after allowing certain relief. After remand of the matter by the Tribunal, the Dy. Commissioner (A) again considered the matter and dismissed the appeal. On second appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal cancelled the assessment made by the ITO on the ground that there was no proof that the notice under section 148 was served on the assessee. On reference under section 256(2) it was held that the employee of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer only in response to a notice under section 142(1) and not in response to notice under section 148. Section 142 (1) dealt with the enquiry before assessment and the appearance of the employee was to produce accounts or documents before the ITO and the same could not be deem to be knowledge of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In the absence of the acknowledgement slip or indication of service of notice under section 148 in the order sheet, no noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their behalf. It was held that the notices which form the basis of proceedings under section 147 of the Act were wholly invalid and the petitioners could not be assesseed in pursuance of those notices. The decision of Hon'ble Mysore High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case before us as the same is distinguishable on facts. 37. In the case of Sewalal Daga (supra) this decision was rendered in 1922 Act where service of notice was a condition precedent of any reassessment made under section 34 and if a valid notice is not issued as required, the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of an invalid notice and consequent orders of reassessment passed by him would be void and inoperative. This decision was rendered under 1922 Act wherein jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer was to vest only on service of notice was affected. This decision is also distinguishable on facts and law and hence cannot be applied to the facts of the present case where we are discussing the issue of fresh notice during the pendency of reassessment proceedings. 38. Since we have annulled the assessments for assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05, the revenue's appeals for these years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er worked by him at Rs. 37,46,15,121 on the basis of credits appearing in bank accounts of the assessee; 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,06,84,000 by ignoring the fact that the said amount was the total amount of cash deposited by the assessee in different banks account in his name as well as in the names of dummy and fictitious concerns floated by him for providing bogus entries as admitted by him at the time of recording of his statement during survey proceedings; (b) While deciding this issue the ld. CIT (Appeals) has not considered the fact that the assessee could not furnish any satisfactory reply on the cash deposits made in various accounts amounting to Rs. 5,06,84,000 during the course of assessment proceedings." 40. From the perusal of grounds of appeal it may be noted that issues are common in assessee's as well as Revenue's appeal. During the year under consideration the assessee was engaged in entry providing business. The ld. CIT(A) has taken the sum of cash deposited in various accounts as turnover of this business whereas the Assessing Officer during the course of assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for withdrawing the same for recycling in the system. Therefore, the benefit of peak credit could not be given. He further noted that the commission at the rate of 2 per cent of the turnover as an entry provider could not be accepted for the reason that the assessee had not come forward to explain his case and provide the names of actual beneficiaries. Until the source of fund was explained by the assessee in the name of actual beneficiaries, the same has to be considered in the hands of the assessee. He, therefore, held that the cash deposited by him were unexplained. He, therefore, added the amount of cash deposited in respective years as detailed as under:- Asst. Year Amount deposited in the bank. 2000-01 Rs. 5,06,84,000 2005-06 Rs. 67,53,90,956 Thus in assessment year 2001-02, the Assessing Officer made two additions i.e., the first addition on account commission income on admitted sales at Rs. 49,50,064 and second on account of cash deposited in various Bank accounts controlled and operated by him at Rs. 5,06,84,000. Similarly in assessment year 2005-06 addition was made on admitted sales at Rs. 46,92,134 and on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,121. He estimated commission at the rate of 1 per cent on this turnover amounting to Rs. 37,46,151. From commission income of Rs. 37,46,151, the amount disclosed by the assessee at Rs. 1,44,555 was to be deducted and the balance amount of Rs. 36,01,596 (37,46,151-1,44,555) was to be assessed as income from commission business. 44. As regards the addition of Rs. 5,06,84,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposited in the bank accounts, the ld. CIT (A) observed that the Assessing Officer has simply taken all cash entries in the bank account and the total of the same had been assessed as income from undisclosed sources. The ld. CIT (A) further noted that while taking the above entries, the Assessing Officer had not considered withdrawals made by the assessee before the cash deposits in the bank account. Where an assessee was maintaining books of account and some of the entries in the bank accounts are recorded and some are un-accounted, then the method adopted by the Assessing Officer is fully justifiable, but in a case where no books of account were maintained on regular basis, it was necessary to examine both deposits and withdrawals before coming to a conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27,68,49,234. Out of this Rs. 39,65,811 was on account of cheques returned. Therefore, the net amount credited in these bank accounts was at Rs. 27,28,83,423. Similarly, the assessee was having bank accounts in Standard Chartered Bank and HDFC, Chandni Chowk in the name of Garg Sales Corporation. The amounts appearing in these accounts were at Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 5,63,60,302. Similarly, in the name of Rahul Enterprises also the assessee opened an account in Syndicate Bank, Naya Bazar and total credits appearing in that account were at Rs. 1,52,22,545. All these accounts were used by the assessee to carry on entry business. The total credits appearing in all the account were at Rs. 34,45,16,270 both in the name of Garg Sales Corporation and Rahul Enterprises . The ld. CIT (A) took the credit entries appearing in various bank accounts as turnover He applied 1 per cent commission rate and estimated the income from bogus entry business at Rs. 34,45,162. The ld. CIT (A) from this amount deducted the income disclosed by the assessee in the return of income at Rs. 3,62,128. Thus the commission income estimated by CIT (A) from commission entry business carried out in the names of M/s. Garg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer had simply taken all cash entries in the above bank accounts and the total of same had been assessed as income from other sources. The ld. CIT (A) further noted that the assessee was receiving cash and issuing cheques to beneficiaries. Similarly receipt of cheque was followed by payment in cash. In view of this it was not correct to hold the cash deposits as separate item of income for which there was no source found by the Department. In the alternative ld. CIT(A) also noted that if the cash deposits represented the sales made by the assessee in his trading account, then due deduction was necessary to be allowed for purchases as well. There was no evidence found in the course of survey to the effect that the assessee had carried on any business trading activities. Accordingly, only commission income was required to be computed in case of dummy entities considering the total cash entries as turnover of the assessee. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that commission income has to be computed on cash deposits also. He, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to compute commission at the rate of 1 per cent. 46.1 The ld. CIT (Appeals) thereafter worked out the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition in respect of amounts deposited in the banks and estimating the commission income on such deposits. 48. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. During the course of survey operations, statement of the assessee was recorded wherein it has been categorically admitted that no purchase and sale activities are undertaken in the names of firms. The assessee was using the firms for the purpose of providing sale bills for which he was collecting commission. The assessee was depositing cash in the bank accounts of the dummy firms as well as his own firms through which he was carrying out accommodation entry business. At the time of survey no evidence was found to suggest that the assessee was engaged in real commission business. No other source of income was also found. It is also the case of Assessing Officer that the assessee was carrying on business of entry provider. The assessments were reopened for this purpose only. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has given a finding of fact that the assessee was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries and, therefore, the amounts deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f bogus entry providers cannot be compared with the transactions of real estate business transactions. He has to ensure the nature of the property and has to satisfy both seller and purchaser. The services rendered by the brokers in real estate transactions are more than the entry providers. Hence both the transactions are not comparable. Therefore, the comparison of commission earned on a real estate transaction, which in fact takes place and commission on transaction which does not at all occur, are not comparable. In accommodation entries the transaction does not take place and, therefore, commission will be certainly lower than the commission in the case of real estate or real transactions. Moreover, neither the ld. CIT (A) nor the Assessing Officer had given any comparable case wherein commission at the rate of 1.75 per cent as taken by the Assessing Officer or 1 per cent adopted by the ld. CIT (A) has been admitted by other assessees engaged in business of bogus provider. Therefore, in the absence of any such material on record, the statement given by the assessee on oath during the course of survey proceedings has to be given credence. The assessee has floated the bogus conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
