9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an individual, who filed her returns of income for both the years under consideration regularly on 27.07.2009 and 28.07.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 3,48,800/- and Rs. 4,21,450/- for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. Although the said returns were initially processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessments were subsequently reopened by him on the basis of information received from DDIT(Inv.), Tech.-II, Kolkata that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries taken from one Shri Praven Kumar Jain for bogus purchases of Rs. 3,90,665/- and Rs. 3,22,750/- in A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. Accordingly notices under section 148 were issued by the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 147/143(3) for both the years under consideration, appeals were preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made by the Assessing Officer to its total income under section 68 by treating the sale proceeds of diamonds as unexplained cash credits. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not find merit in the case of the assessee and proceeded to uphold the validity of the assessments made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) for both the years under consideration and also confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contended that the income, which according to the Assessing Officer, had escaped assessment on account of the alleged bogus purchases and which initially formed a reason to believe for reopening the assessments thus was not added by the Assessing Officer in the assessments made under section 147/143(3) and since the additions were made by him on a different issue by treating the sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit under section 68 without issuing any fresh notice under section 148, the said additions are not sustainable in law. In support of this contention, she relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Jet Airways India Limited [331 ITR 236] and that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01415/2826 dated 12.08.2014, it is revealed that during search proceedings in the case of Praven Kr. Jain, certain beneficiaries of accommodation entries were found in which the assessee was one of the beneficiaries through bogus sales/purchase. The assessee made transactions through bogus concern operated the said Praveen Kumar Jain as per the following details: Name of the beneficiaries Asst. year Name of transaction Amount of transactions Manju Devi Bain 2009-10 SAL 3,90,665/- -Do- 2010-11 SAL 1,10,000/- -Do- 201011 SAL 2,12,750/- As per the findings of DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, Shri Pravin Kumar Jain provided accommodation entries to various beneficiaries, the assessee is one of the beneficiaries. Since the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to him, were unverifiable in the absence of details furnished by the assessee regarding names and addresses of the parties to whom the same were made. He accordingly treated the proceeds of such sales made by the assessee in cash as unexplained cash credits and made addition under section 68. It is thus clear that no addition was made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee in the assessments made under section 147/143(3) for both the years under consideration on account of the alleged bogus purchases, which formed the basis of reopening and the addition was made on account of different issue by treating the proceeds of the corresponding sales made out of such purchases as unexplained cash credit under section 68. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer under section 68 in the assessments completed under section 147/143(3) cannot be said to be connected or related with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, wherein the belief of escapement of income was formed by him on the basis of alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee, which were finally accepted by him in the assessments as genuine. I, therefore, find no merit in the contention raised by the ld. D.R. by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jayant Security & Finance Limited (supra), which was rendered entirely in a different context. In my opinion, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways India Limited and of Hon'ble Delhi Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
