9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice u/s 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened on the basis of the reasons which are vague and has been recorded without application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the rejecting of the books of accounts of the assessee by the Assessing Officer, despite the fact that the assessee has been maintaining proper books of accounts as per law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs. 1,51,664/- on account of bogus purchases. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had filed its return of income, for the year under consideration on 23.08.2006, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,82,469/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 02/02/2007 at the declared returned income. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened, on an information received from the ACIT, Central Circle 10, Jhandelwalan Extn., on the allegation that the assessee had made bogus purchases. The assessment was completed by the ld. Assessing Officer by making an addition of Rs. 7,58,321/-, treating the entire purchases made by the assessee from M/s Shree Shyam Trading Company and M/s Vishnu Trading Company, to be accommodation entries. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment but reduced the addition to 20% of the purchases, being Rs. 7,58,321/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us now. 5. The grounds taken before us by the assessee relates to the validity of the reassessment, as well as the sustenance of the addition to an extent of Rs. 1,61,664/-. 5.1. So far as the validity of the assessment is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of search cases of Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Vishesh Gupta, Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain are under process with the ACIT, Central Circle-10. During the assessment proceedings u/s 153A in the aforesaid cases, details regarding accommodation entries given by the above entry providers has been obtained by the Assessing Officer. 3. The list of accommodation entry recipients has been obtained from Sh. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Vishesh Gupta. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as Annexure A, duly signed by Sh. Vishes Gupta. The list given the name of the firm which has provided the accommodation entry along with the name and address of the recipients of accommodation entry. 4. Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain has provided accommodation entry through thirty seven paper entities. The list of the firms giving accommodation entry is enclosed as annexure-B. The list of accommodation entry recipients, has been obtained from Sh. Naveneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain. It does not give year wise bifurcation. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as annexure-C, duly signed by Sh. Vaibhav Jain. Thus, the firms mention in the list 'B' have provided accommodation entries to the firms mentioned in lis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reassessment is duly covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal (supra) and Shree Radheshyam & Company (supra) in which this Tribunal, vide orders dated 28/01/2015 and 30/11/2015 respectively, has quashed the reassessment proceedings. We also note that in these cases the ld. Assessing Officer had recorded similar reasons, and the party from which the assessee therein had made purchases were also same, as in the case of the present assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal (supra) and Shree Radheshyam and Company (supra), we quashed the reassessment proceedings. 10. Now coming to the sustenance of the addition by the ld. CIT(A) to an extent of 20% of the purchases made by the assessee, we note that the Tribunal, vide its order dated 30/11/2015 in the case of Shree Radheshyam & Company (supra) have deleted similar addition. 11. The Tribunal in the case of Shree Radheshyam & Company (supra), has followed the findings given in the order dated 28/11/2015 in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra). This Tribunal has observed as under: 7. "Now coming to the merit about the sustenance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
