9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . formerly known as M/s Aravali Medical Safety Appliances P. Ltd., is assessed to tax in this charge. The Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), New Delhi during the course of survey operation on the business premises of Sh. Sanjay Rastogi at 210, Wakil Chamber, A-115, Shakarpur, Delhi and subsequent investigation, found that Sh. Sanjay Rastogi and his associates had a number of companies for giving bogus entries and that one of these companies M/s Halllmark Healthcare Ltd. having bank Account Nos. CA833 in Khatri Cooperative Bank Ltd. had given bogus entries to M/s AMSA India P. Ltd. for the period relatable to A.Y.1997-98 as per details below: Date Cheque No. Debit Amt.(Rs.) Credit (Rs) 5-3-97 761030 4,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the tune of over Rs. 19,00,000/- (of M/s Hallmarks Healthcare Ltd.). It was further submitted that the Directors of the said concern had some internal disputes and as a consequence, apparently, the company was facing winding up. After satisfying himself as to the correctness of this explanation, the AO accepted the expenditure and completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. In respect of the returns of the next five years, the AO did not, in the circumstances, deem it appropriate to question the expenditure and for AY 1997-98 and 1998-99, the AO finalized the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and for the other years, intimation was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. 3. Placing reliance upon the ruling in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rastogi did not specifically mention the assessee in his statement, did not preclude the possibility of the expenditure being a sham. It was submitted that so long as the statement was outside the regular records it constituted fresh material to pass the test prescribed in Kelvinator's case (supra). 5. It is evident from the above factual discussion that the entire basis for the reassessment notice impugned by the petitioner is Sanjay Rastogi's statement. His questioning and his answers nowhere implicate the petitioner. He specifically names 2-3 concerns as the beneficiaries of the bogus entry business / activity that he was carrying on. However, the statement nowhere mentions the petitioner. The second aspect - and more crucially in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
