9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nates from the impugned order dated 25/2/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi. 2. The grounds raised in the Revenue s appeal read as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in annulling the order passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act on the grounds that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued and thereby deleting addition of ₹ 40,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained entries u/s. 68 of the Act. 2. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order are not proved in any manner and onus of the Revenue not having been discharged, the perverse addition was rightly deleted and does not call for interference. 5. The Respondent assessee prays for hearing and decision of the Appeal of the Revenue and Cross objection of the assessee together. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return declaring income of ₹ 38,220/- on 28.10.2005. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act., 1961. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from Addl. DIT(Inv.), New Delhi that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry of ₹ 31,50,000/- The said accommodation entry is stated to have been provided by one Mr. Surendra Kumar Jain, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts remains unexplained and was accordingly added to the income of the assessee as its income from undisclosed sources. Accordingly, the income was assessed at ₹ 40,38,220/- u/s. 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 20.3.2013. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned Order dated 20.3.2013 has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection in support of the Ld. CIT(A) order. 7. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f accommodating entry of ₹ 31,50,000/- The said accommodation entry is stated to have been provided by one Mr.Surendra Kumar Jain, who provided accommodation entry to varies beneficiaries through a large number of shell managed by him. The said accommodation entry is stated to have been provided by Stellar Investments Ltd amounting to ₹ 21,50,000/- and Mehul Finvest Pvt. Ltd. amounting to ₹ 10,00,000/-. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2012 after duly recording the reasons and prior approval of Ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-17, New Delhi. Nobody attended nor any return has been filed by the assessee in response of Notice U/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 10.07.2-12 fixing the date of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be communicated to the Assessee. However, merely because the Assessee participates in the proceedings pursuant to such notice under Section 148 of the Act, it does not obviate the mandatory requirement of the AO having to issue to the Assessee a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act before finalising the order of the reassessment. 5. In view of the assessee's contention being supported by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the impugned order u/s 147 dated 20.03.2013 is not sustainable in law. Same is annulled. 6. In view of the above, the remaining grounds of appeal are not required to be adjudicated. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 9.1 After perusing the aforesaid findings of the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the impugned order u/s 147 dated 20.03.2013 is not sustainable in law and same was accordingly annulled, which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in annulling the order u/s. 147 dated 20.3.2013. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. With regard to Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is concerned, since I have already dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, the grounds taken by the Assessee in its Cross Objection has become infructuous, hence, the C.O. is dismissed as such. 12. In the result, both the Revenue s Appeal as well as Assessee s Cross Objection stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09/03/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
