9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case by treating the same as bad in law. 2. Quashing the assessment order passed by AO wherein an addition of Rs.35,77,293/- on account of income from unexplained sources u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal." 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us with regard to ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal. The reasons for reopening of assessment are reproduced by the Assessing Officer at pages 1 & 2 of his order. The same is reproduced below for ready reference:- "The Investigation Wing, Delhi conducted large scale investigation to unearth a huge racket involving accommodation entry providers. Such entry providers were found to be involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at return for A.Y. 2003-04 has not been scrutinized. There is no information regarding return filed by such assessee, on the AST software. Jurisdiction is being assumed on the basis of address available in the database. Keeping in view the above facts, it is requested that necessary approval u/s 151(2) may kindly be accorded for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the I.T. Act in order to book income which had escaped assessment." 4. Learned CIT(A) has held the reopening of assessment to be invalid following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Supreme Polypropolene (P) Ltd. - ITA No.266/2011 dated 30th October, 2012. 5. The learned DR, at the time of hearing before us, has relied upon the decision of Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptember, 2001. Thus, it could not be held to be a fictitious person. The reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to be quashed." 7. Similar view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the subsequent decision in the case of CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. - [2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi), wherein their Lordships held as under:- "The information on the basis of which the Assessing Officer h ad initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was vague and uncertain and could not be construed to be sufficient and relevant material on the basis of which a reasonable person could have formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. The notice of reassessment was not valid and was liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneficiaries who have taken accommodation entries from such person/firm including the name of Bimla Devi. Now, the present assessee is Maya Gupta and not Bimla Devi. Then, in the chart, only the value of entry taken is mentioned but the nature of entry whether it is a bogus gift, loan or share capital money is not mentioned. Moreover, on what basis the above presumption is drawn that the assessee has taken any accommodation entry is also not mentioned. No reference is made to any statement given by any accommodation entry provider or any documentary evidence found from their premises which indicated any accommodation entry being taken by the assessee. Therefore, on these facts, in our opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
