9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person”. When the assessee had admitted to have received the re-assessment order and other appellate notice in the said address where the AO has also sent the Section 148/ 147 notices, there is no reason to disbelieve the AO’s report that in fact statutory notices were issued and sent in the said address to be served upon the assessee before the limitation period - The conduct of the Assessee company to file on the last day of limitation some papers before the AO, strengthens the belief of the AO assesse deliberately avoided the said notice and does not give any scope to suspect the report of the AO, that notices u/s 148/ 147 was duly issued to the Assessee company, and it cannot claim any lapse on the part of the AO and cannot take any benefit out of it - the AO has made detailed enquiry in the remand report regarding the genuineness of the share applicants by sending notice u//s 133(6) and summons u/s 131 and also had send an inspector to serve the notice - merely because transactions happened through banking channel does not ipso facto establish genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The AO in the second remand report has tried his level best to contact the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer for reopening under section 148 read with section 142(1) after recording reasons and notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on 19.03.2010. The said notice was received back un-served with the postal remarks no such firm . Accordingly the notice was served by affixture, since there was no compliance from the part of the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) was also issued on 16.08.2010 requiring the appellant to furnish the return of income. The case was fixed for hearing on 27.09.2010 and on the date fixed again no one attended nor did the appellant filed any application for adjournment. Thereafter the Assessing Officer gave a final notice at the address of the Director and the notice is reproduced as follows:- .Till date no return of income has been filed by you in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. You are hereby afforded another opportunity to file the return of income and also explain as to why the accommodation entries of ₹ 39,01,750/- taken by you during the year under consideration be not added to your income. For the purpose, your case is fixed for hearing on 26.11.2010 at 2.30 before the undersigned. Please note that this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s including the appeal notices were also received on the same address except the statutory notice mandatorily required to be served on the Assessee before the re-opening the assessment. Therefore, according to the ld AR the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not issued by the Assessing Officer and the observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee s address could have been changed is totally false and incorrect. It was further submitted by the ld AR that according to Assessing Officer the assessee has furnished balance sheet in which, share application money was shown ₹ 41 lacs and issued capital is of ₹ 1 lac. Thus, total application money and share application was at ₹ 42,00,000/- but according to Assessing Officer he has received the information which is reproduced below and then he went ahead to make the addition based on the said information of DIT(Inv.) Information was received from the DIT(Inv) that the assessee company was beneficiary of accommodation entries. As per information the assessee has taken the following accommodation entries: Sl. No. Account/ Value Date Name of party of Giving Entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. Hence, the entire proceedings is bad in law. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 the assessee is furnishing explanation under protest. 3. It is submitted that the above share application money was received by the following companies. Name Bank Branch Amount (Rs.) K.R. Fincap Ltd. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur New Rohtak Road 5,00,000 Kuldeep Textiles Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur New Rohtak Road 5,00,000 Sh. Dina Nath Luhariwala State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur New Rohtak Road 4,00,000 Sekhawati Finance Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 6,00,000 V.R. Traders Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 5,00,000 Chintpurni Credits Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 4,00,000 Gang Finvest Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 3,00,000 Kuber Co Sales Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 3,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee was taken by the Assessing Officer from the AIS and also from ROC Web Site. The address shown is 1128 Kucha Natwa Chandni Chowk, Delhi . According to the ld DR, no change of address was intimated to the office of Revenue. Accordingly, the notices were sent at the above said address. And when no compliance nor any reply came from the assessee company, notice was even sent at the address of the Director of the assessee company and since the said notice has not come back unserved the service of the notice has been presumed by the AO. In spite of serving notices on the Director of the assessee, during the assessment proceedings, non appeared on behalf of the assessee and no reply has been furnished, so it was presumed by the AO that the assessee is not interested in furnishing the return or any other documents to substantiate its claim if any. The ld DR further submitted that the AO in his second remand report had conducted a detailed enquiry to trace out the share applicants and for that purpose he had send notice u/s 133(6) dated 2nd July 2012 and the said notice was received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks that left no such person . The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the ld DR the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the share applicants and cited the case of Nova Promoters 347 ITR 169 (DEL). Therefore according to the ld DR, the ld CIT(A) was right in holding that the said share application money of sum of ₹ 39,01,750/- was rightly added back to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and therefore no interference of the impugned order is required. 15. We have heard both the parties and have perused the case laws cited by them. We find that the assessee has reiterated before us that there is no change in the postal address of the assessee and tried to convince us that mandatory statutory notices before re-opening of assessment were not served upon the assessee. However, we find that the assessee itself has admitted that it has received the impugned re-assessment order and also the appeal notices of the appellate proceedings in the very same postal address where the AO has sent the statutory notices envisaged under the Act before re-opening the assessment. The assessee has not leveled any malafide motive on the part of the AO to deliberately not to have issued the statutory notices before the re-opening of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the last day on which the limitation got over, the assessee had filed its reply to the statutory notices and also has admitted of receiving the re-assessment order and notices of the appellate proceedings. In the said scenario, it does not lie in the mouth of the assessee, to turn around and allege that but for the statutory notices it has received all correspondence to the said address. Therefore the ground of non-service of statutory notices before re-opening proceedings cannot be countenanced and therefore dismissed. 16. We find it difficult to subscribe to the contention of the ld AR that by producing merely the name and PAN details of the share applicants the burden on the assessee is discharged. By merely furnishing the said details would not prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants. Therefore we find no infirmity in the reasoning given by the ld CIT(A), and we find that proper enquiry has been made by the AO during the remand proceedings and therefore, there is no reason for us to interfere in the impugned order and so resultantly we are not inclined to do so, and therefore we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
