9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"), against the order dated January 20, 2009, annexure A.4 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short, "the Tribunal"), for the assessment year 2000-01, claiming the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in concluding that the Assessing Officer could not have assessed the income chargeable to tax which has come to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under section 147 though was not the basis for reopening of the procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri V. K. Umat, chartered accountants of Amritsar, were involved in providing accommodation entries to various assessees. One such finance company was M/s. Mehak Finvest P. Ltd. The bank accounts of this finance company were first used to receive cash and then to issue accommodation entries. All the accounts were held in the name of various employees of Shri Kapil Aggarwal and Shri V. K. Umat, chartered accountants. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. It was noticed that fresh share application money amounting to Rs. 47,00,000 could not be explained by the respondent and, therefore, treating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi), Balbir Chand Maini v. CIT [2012] 340 ITR 161 (P&H), CIT v. M. P. Iron Traders [2004] 189 CTR 154 (P&H) and CIT v. Empire Finvest Ltd. (I. T. A. No. 421 of 2009, decided on November 26, 2009), to contend that the Tribunal had rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was submitted that the Tribunal had relied upon the decision in Empire Finvest Ltd.'s case (supra) against which no appeal had been filed. In the present case, the circumstances being similar, the appeal be dismissed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our view, the appeal deserves to succeed. Explanation 3 to section 147 has been inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, retrospectively with effect from Apri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the respondent, it may be noticed that the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj) was held to be not applicable being prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act. Further, Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act was not under consideration in Empire Finvest Ltd.'s case (supra). In view of the binding precedent of this court in Majinder Singh's case (supra) against which special leave petition has been dismissed on August 19, 2011, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (I) Ltd.'s case (supra), which has been followed by the Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.'s case (supra), would not come to the rescue of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
