9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer have been held to be illegal. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has reopened the assessment on the basis of report of the investigation wing and there appears to be no independent application of mind by the Assessing officer for reopening of the case, therefore, the reassessment proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer are not proper. Therefore, hold that the reassessment proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer is illegal and accordingly the subsequent proceedings also become illegal and void - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng its transaction with the assessee. It was replied by the said company that it has given an amount of ₹ 5,50,000/- through cheque No. 000111 dated 24.12.2007 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the Director of above said company. He also asked the assessee to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the Investor Company and genuineness of the transaction. However, the assessee failed to produce the director of the investor company. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee and relying on various decisions the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 5,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the IT Act. On the ground that the assessee could not sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and void ab initio. Referring to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, copy of which is placed at pages 20 and 21 of the paper book he submitted that the reasons have been recorded in a mechanical manner and without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has simply mentioned that as per the information received from the Investigation Wing of the department vide letter dated 12.03.2013 that the assessee during the financial year 2007-08 has received total entries of ₹ 5,50,000/- from the entities managed and controlled by the Sh. Surender Kumar Jain for providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries. He submitted that in the reasons recorded there is no refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r company has complied with the notice issued u/s. 133 (6) by the Assessing Officer. 7. So far as the production of the director is concerned he submitted that assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to call them by issuing notice u/s. 131 which was not done by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the assessee has discharged the onus cast on it by proving the various ingredients of section 68. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) is not proper. He also relied on the following decisions :- 1. CIT Vs. Gangeshwari of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 361 ITR 10 2. Goodview Trading Vs. PCIT of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 377/2016 3. CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes 329 ITR 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat High Court 2016-TIOL-370- HC-AHM-IT 13. Ankit Agrochem (P) Ltd. Vs. JCIT Rajasthan High Court [2018] 89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan) 14. Rakesh Gupta Vs. CIT P & H High Court [2018] 93 taxman.com 271 (Punjab & Haryana) 9. So far as the addition on merit is concerned the Ld. DR relied on the following decisions :- 1. PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) 2. PCIT Vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2019-TIOL-172-HC-DEL-IT) 10. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. A perusal of the reasons for reopening of the case for the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
