9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income-tax(Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi, for assessment year 2004-05, raising following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A)- XVIII, New Deihi has erred both on facts and ;n law, in upholding the illegal order passed by the Respondent without jurisdiction, violative of natural justice, without application of fair and objective mind to facts of the case and the law applicable and hence liable to be set aside and quashed and declared non-est in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A)- XVIII, New Delhi has erred both on facts and in law, in upholding the illegal action of re-assessment and assumption of jurisdiction illegally by the Respondent that too without issue/ served notice u/s 148 and without following the statutory requirements of section 147 to 153 of the Income Tax Act, therefore the entire proceedings of reassessment is void ab initio, illegal and unauthorized by law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A)- XVIII, New Delhi has erred both on facts and in law, in upholding assumption of jurisdiction in spite of the fact that the case is of after fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in upholding the illegal additions and disallowances and consequent demands of Income Tax, Interest and penalties illegally raised by the Respondent and hence the impugned order sustaining the additions and demand would require be setting aside and quashing to that extent 10. The appellant craves leave to raise further/additional grounds and documents and file paper book before the hearing of the appeal and prays for the appeal to be allowed after hearing both side. 2. The facts in brief are that return declaring income of ₹ 1,810/- was filed by M/s Roopin Capital Private Limited (in short the Company ) on 19th of August 2004. This company now stands merged with the assessee company, so hereinafter the company is addressed as assessee. The return of income filed by the Company was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) on 04/01/2005. Subsequently, on receipt of information from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, that the assessee company was one of the beneficiaries of the bogus accommodation entries totalling to ₹ 7.5 lakh, the Assessing Officer (AO) after recording reasons to believe th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons recorded, then no other additions could be made in the reassessment proceedings. In support of the proposition, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del). On merit of the addition, the ld. AR submitted that the entry in reference was in respect of the sale of stocks and not in the nature of any credit or investment and, therefore, same could not be assessed under section 68 of the Act, as assessee has already declared the same as sales in the profit and loss account. The Ld AR further submitted that all the documents to substantiate the claim of sale were already filed before the Assessing Officer and therefore the addition was even not justified on merit. 5. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the order of the authorities below submitted that the assessee received accommodation entry from Mr. Mukesh Gupta, who is a known entry provider and the information received was specific to the assessee, the AO after verification, reopened the relevant assessment year and therefore it cannot be said that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. It is noticed from the list of entries that the assessee M/s Roopin Capital P Ltd. has taken following accommodation entries from the following persons (beneficiary) as per details hereunder:- In view of the report received from the DIT(Inv.) New Delhi, and in view of-the facts narrated above it is clear that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that assessment year. I have therefore, reason to believe that the sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus, the same is to be brought to tax 'under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act 1961. Notice u/s 148 may be issued, if approved. 7. Thus, we find that according to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, the assessee received accommodation entry from M/s. Zigma Telecom Private Limited, but in the assessment order there is no mention of the said party. The relevant part of the order of the Assessing Officer mentioning the name of the parties in respect of whom, he made addition is as under: 3.1 The information received from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, indicated that the assessee had received bogus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All these conditions are required to be fulfilled to assess or reassess the escaped income chargeable to tax. As per Expln. 3 if during the course of these proceedings the AO comes to conclusion that some items have escaped assessment, then notwithstanding that those items were not included in the reasons to believe as recorded for initiation of the proceedings and the notice, he would be competent to make assessment of those items. However, the legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the AO that on assuming jurisdiction under s. 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before AO during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under s. 148. 19. In the present case, as is noted above, the AO was satisfied with the justifications given by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
