9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies Act. For the assessment year 2007-2008, the petitioner filed return of income on 15.11.2007. Such return was accepted without scrutiny in terms of section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). To re-open such reassessment, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice. He has recorded following reasons for issuing notice for re-opening. "Assessee has filed return of income on 15.11.2007 at total income of ₹ 13,22,04,630/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Further information has been received from from DDIT(Inv)-III(2), Mumbai that that a search and seizure action was carried out in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain group on 1.10.2013. In the statement recorded during the course of search Shri Pravin Kumar admitted that the only activity carried out by all concerns cotnrolled by him is providing accommodatin entries in the nature of bogus unsecured loan, share application money, bogus sales and LTCG etc. Further from the statements of dummy directions/proprietors, it was revealed that they were used to sign different papers for nominal consideration given by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, Pravin Kumar Jain himself is a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70,000 From the above facts, it is clear that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the A.Y.2007- 2008. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of ₹ 12,61,70,000/- chargeable to tax has escape assessment by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961. In order to bring to tax above mentioned escaped income as well as any other income which might have escaped assessment, found during the course of proceedings, notice under section 148 is issued." 2. Upon supplying reasons for re-opening, the petitioner raised objections under communication dated 19.2.2015. Such objections were however rejected by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 10.7.2015. Hence this petition. 3. While agreeing with the original assessment which was not framed after scrutiny, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assessing Officer had abandoned reasons which were foundation for issuance of the impugned notice. On this single ground, he challenged the notice for re-opening. To establish this ground, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at different points of time. Under section 143(1)(a) as it stood prior to April 1,1 1989, the Assessing Officer had to pass an assessment order if he decided to accept the return, but under the amended provision, the requirement of passing of an assessment order has been dispensed with and instead an intimation is required to be sent. Various circulars sent by the Central Board of Direct Taxes spell out the intent of the Legislature, i.e., to minimise the Departmental work to scrutinise each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K.Jain,J) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India (1996) 220 nITR 248 (Delhi). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section1 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him. It is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any "assessment" is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerns. These accommodation entries were in the nature of bogus share capital, bogus unsecured loan are bogus sale/purchase entries. b. As per information provided by the investigating wing, Mumbai. The three entities viz. Kunal Gems, Natasha Enterprises and Mohit International were not carrying out any genuine business and were engaged in providing accommodation entries of the nature of bogus share capital, bogus unsecured loan or bogus sale/purchase entries. c. The assessee has nowhere denied that it has not made any transaction with the three concerns. The reason being that the accommodation entries must have been routed through Banking channel, for which the trail cannot be obliterated by the assessee. However, the accounting treatment of the same is in control of the assessee and it has accounted the transactions with the three entities in head other than Share capital/bogus investment i.e. as Sale transactions. d. It can be easily presumed that entities which have no real business besides facilitating accommodation entries were not capable of such purchase of bullion/jewellery. Thus assessee has fabricated sale bill in name of these entities in order to account for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
