9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is bad in law: l. The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment made u/s.147 of the Act without considering facts that it is based on the conjectures, surmises and assumptions and not on any tangible material, even if some information was received the AO failed to apply his independent mind to such material before reopening the completed assessment u/s. 143(3) dt 30/11/2010. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact, the A.O. had not furnished the copy of recorded reasons on the basis which case was reopened. Therefore, A.O. has failed to follow the due process of law. This fact was raised in the grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 2. Violation of Natural Justice: 3. The CIT (A) erred in uphold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engineered gains and making addition, without bringing any records or evidence, hence the addition is on assumption and conjectures, the same may be deleted. 8. The Assessee denies the penal interest levied u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of Share, Share derivatives and Commodity derivatives, filed its return of income for relevant AY on 30.09.2008 declaring total income at Rs. 1,84,03,500/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and was accepted on 30.10.2009. Again the case was selected for scrutiny, and assessment was completed on 30.11.2010 under section 143(3) determining the total income at Rs. 2,37,68,106/- under the normal provision and Rs. 3,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee made the statement that he is not pressing ground no. 1 & 2. The ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection on the statement of ld. AR of the assessee. Thus, considering the contention of both the parties, ground no. 1 & 2 are dismissed. 4. Ground No. 3&4 relates to Violation of Natural Justice, Ground No.5 &6 relates to addition of Rs. 11,37,63,636/- on account of undisclosed income on account of bogus share transaction and Ground No.7 relates to addition on account of commission on such undisclosed income. All these issues are interconnected, thus, taken up together. The ld. AR of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, no copy of the Ledger relied by Assessing Officer was provided to the assessee. The Assessing Officer failed to consider the submission, explanation and various documents furnished by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer without appreciating the contention of the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). The assessee further relied upon the various decisions, copy of which is filed in the form of Paper Book. Sr. No. Particulars Pg. No. 1. SLP rejected dt 27/1/2014 against Hon'ble Bombay High Court Judgement CIT vs. Mukesh R. Marolia ITA No. 456 of 2007, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. It was argued that Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) made the full-fledged investigation during the search conduced at the premises of Mukesh Choksi group. In the search, it was unearthed that Mukesh Choksi group was involved in providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal in a number of cases has assessed the income of Mukesh Choksi as a commission agent for providing accommodation entries. It was further argued that though the assessee was given full opportunities by the lower authorities before passing the assessment order and order on appeal by ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR for the Revenue filed a copy of decision of Tribunal in Shri Jayesh K. Samat vs. DCIT in ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation entries of Rs. 1,13,76,363/-. The Assessing Officer, thus, made the addition of Rs. 1,13,76,636/- and further added commission payment @ 5% on such unexplained money. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer holding that transaction made with Alliance Intermediary and Network Pvt. Ltd. (group concerned of Mukesh Choksi) were found to be bogus by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department and that the assessee has not been able to furnish report under section 10DB in support of Security Transaction Tax. The addition on commission payment was also sustained holding that there cannot be any doubt that assessee can get any entry from any other business entity without any payment of commission of money. 7. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
