9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T.A. No. 3751/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2012 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, CA Respondent by : S . Mohanty, D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi dated 31.5.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2002-03. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of IT Act, 1961 especially because the written submissions filed before him have not been considered. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the action u/s. 147/148 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in justifying the action u/s. 147/148 not on the reasons recorded but on the other material. 4. The Cit has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. vs. ITO 203 ITR 456 (SC), MTNL vs. Chairman CBDT, 246 ITR 173 (Del) [2000], Raymond Woolen Mills vs. ITO, 236 ITR 34 (SC) [1999] and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhavery Stock Broker P Ltd, 291 ITR 500 (SC) [2007], ITO vs. Gurinder Kaur, 102 ITD 189 (Del) [2006] and many other cases. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no merit in the submission of the assessee and the action of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment is fully supported by the various case laws some of which are as under:- (i) Calcutta Discount Co Ltd. vs. ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC) [1961]. (ii) C.I.T. vs. Chidambaram Chettiar (TSPLP), 80 ITR 467 (SC) [1971] (iii) Poolchand Bajranglal vs. ITO 203 ITR 456 (SC) [1993]. (iv) Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC) [1999]. (v) Praful Chunnilal Patel vs. ACIT, 236 ITR 832 (Guj) [1999]. (vi) S Narayanappa vs. C.I.T., 63 ITR 219 (SC) [1967]. (vii) Shri Krishna P Ltd. vs. ITO, 221 ITR 538 (SC) [1996]. (viii) Rakesh Agrawal vs. ACIT, 225 ITR 496 (Del) [1997]. (ix) MTNL vs. Chairman, CBDT, 246 ITR 172 (Del) [2000]. (x) ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhavari Stock Brokers P Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC)[2007]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been issued in a mechanical manner on the basis of vague information from D.C., Central Circle III. Assessing Officer did not dwell upon the veracity and the basis of information received. As per reasons recorded, he received only a list of beneficiaries and no incriminating material. The information is so vague that it does not even mention the names and addresses of the entry operators and in what manner as well as on which dates, the assessee has derived the benefit. There is no reference even to any statement of any entry operator. He has not mentioned any material, which has led him to believe that the information received, is based on some relevant material and the income has escaped assessment. In this regard, decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels P Ltd. (Supra) is relevant. In this case the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reassessment read as under:- Information received from the Office of Director of IT (Inv.)-VI, New Delhi revealed that the assessee has introduced unaccounted money in its books of accounts during the financial year 2002-03 through accommodation entry from Swetu Stone PV for ₹ 5 lacs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hares). We do not know which shares have been transacted and with whom has the transaction taken place. There are absolutely no details available and the information supplied is extremely scanty and vague. Insofar as the basis for the reasons is concerned, even this is absent. The Assessing Officer did not verify the correctness of the information received by him but merely accepted the trust of the vague information in a mechanical manner. The Assessing Officer has not even recorded his satisfaction about the correctness or otherwise of the information or his satisfaction that a case has been made out for issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. Read in this light, what has been recorded by the Assessing Officer as the reasons to believe is nothing more than a report given by him to the C.I.T. As held by the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal (supra), the submission of a report is not the same as recording of reasons to believe for issuing a notice. The Assessing Officer has clearly substituted form for substance and, therefore, the action of the respondent falls foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal which is clearly applicable to the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee figures as one of the beneficiaries of these alleged bogus transactions given by the Directorate after making the necessary enquiries. In the said information, it has been inter alia reported as under : Entries are broadly taken for two purposes : 1. To plough back unaccounted black money for the purpose of business or for personal needs such as purchase of assets etc., in the form of gifts, share application money, loans etc. 2. To inflate expense in the trading and profit and loss account so as to reduce the real profits and thereby pay less taxes. It has been revealed that the following entries have been received by the assessee : Beneficiary s Name Beneficiary s Bank Name Beneficiary s Bank Branch Value Entry Taken AGR Investment Ltd. SBI Pahar Ganj 400000 AGR Investment Ltd SBI Pahar Ganj 300000 AGR Investment Ltd. SBI Pahar Ganj 300000 AGR Investment Ltd S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
