9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ird parties were “Entry Operators”, providing bogus entries in the form of share application credit to the petitioners. The identities of such bogus creditors or Book Entry Operators has not been revealed even though it is known nor are the exact amounts which are reflected in the books of such Entry Operators disclosed as “reasons to believe”. In these circumstances, it is held that the impugned reassessment notices cannot be sustained; they are hereby quashed as are all further consequential proceedings. - W.P.(C) 2158/2016 And W.P.(C) 2383/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ. Present: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal, Ms. Monika Ghai, Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advs. for petitioner. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y business were being used for providing accommodation entries to various assessee who were rerouting their unaccounted cash through these accommodation entries. The assessee would pay cash to the entry providers. This cash would then be deposited in the accounts of various bogus companies and the transactions would be routed through many bank accounts to cover the trail. Then the assessee would be given cheque from one of the many accounts which would be given the colour of share application money or share capital or share premium or loans or advance etc. In the process, the entry operator would earn certain commission. The searches by the Investigating Wing against the entry operators resulted in unearthing of large number of pass books, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10). It is submitted that the pointed queries with respect to the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants was provided including the bank statements for the relevant years. In respect of the impugned reassessment notice, it is argued that the AO in the original assessment scrutiny orders did not furnished any reasons why the materials furnished to him, were acceptable. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the assessee cannot complain that the reasons, which impelled the Revenue to reopen assessments for these two given years were contrary to law. Learned counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 92 Taxmann.com 361 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
