9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal return was filed on 9th February, 2010 declaring a total loss of Rs. 630/-. 3. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, observed that the main issue involved in this case was cash purchase made from Uflex Ltd., Noida, amounting to Rs. 11,37,031/-. To verify this purchase, notice u/s 133(6) was sent to the said company to furnish the copy of account of the assessee in its books of account. From the reply so received, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made cash payment of Rs. 2,63,500/- to the said company on various dates where the amount was in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, invoking the provisions of section 40A(3), made addition of Rs. 2,38,000/- to the total income of the assessee. The submission of the assessee that he gave payments to Uflex Ltd. in the shape of Rs. 20,000/- on each day on different dates, but, never gave more than Rs. 20,000/- at a time on any particular day and is not aware as to how and why Uflex Ltd., Noida had recorded in their books of account higher amount, was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A), the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,000/- each day on different dates. However, the appellant did not produce any such evidence which may show that the payment on each day was Rs. 20,000/-as recorded by the appellant in his books of a/c. In the case of the cash payments, the payer, takes acknowledgement from the payee for the receipt of cash from the payer, which is an evidence showing the said payment being made in cash, on the date and for the amount has mentioned in the receipt/acknowledgement. In any case, the payer, here the appellant was required to produce some cogent evidence to show that he made payment of Rs. 20,000/-in cash on each day and not as shown in his copy of ledger a/c provided by M/s Uflex Ltd. In the absence of any such evidence or material being produced by the appellant either during the course of assessment proceedings or before me in appeal proceedings, the claim of the appellant remains unsubstantiated. Hence the same cannot be accepted in the absence of evidence. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to substantiate his contention that cash payments were only Rs. 20,000/- each day and not as is apparent from the books of Uflex Ltd. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., 391 ITR 11, he submitted that granting sanction to issue notice u/s 148 by merely writing: "Yes, it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, 1961" is illegal. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer, in the instant case, has not applied his mind independently and has reopened the assessment purely in a mechanical manner on the basis of some allegation. He submitted that when the Assessing Officer was not having any tangible material while reopening the assessment and the same was reopened merely to verify the financial transactions, therefore, such reopening is illegal. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- (i) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 338 ITR 51 (Del); (ii) Pr.CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 (Del); (iii) Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (P) Ltd., 396 ITR 5 (Del); (iv) Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del); and (v) Oriental Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 421 (Del) 7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee in its books of account has not shown any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not verifiable and hence, income above Rs. 1,00,000/- has escaped assessment. The assessee has not furnished disclosed these cash purchases in return of income. 2. I have, therefore, reason to believe that the income of more than Rs. 1 lacs chargeable to tax for the A.Y.2009-10 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income tax Act 1961. Issue notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2009-10." 11. I find the Joint Commissioner who has given approval for such reopening has simply mentioned: "Yes, it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, 1961." A perusal of the approval given by the Joint CIT shows that he has not applied his mind properly and has in a mechanical manner written: "Yes, it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, 1961." I find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.C. Cables Ltd. (supra) has held as under:- "Reassessment-Issuance of Notice-Sanction for issue of Notice- Assessee had in its return for A Y 2001-02 claimed that sum of Rs. 1 Crore was received towards share application amounts and a further sum of Thirty Five Lakhs was credited to it as an advance towards loan-Original assessment was completed u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
