9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed by assessee before him that there were regular debit and credit entries of the equivalent amount within a span of 2-3 days and such phenomina is present in the case of entry providers - burden is upon assessee to prove through reliable and cogent evidence that it has received genuine money out of the genuine transaction. If A.O. had any doubt on the paper submitted by assessee before him, it is the duty of the assessee to produce the Principal Officer/Director of the Investor Company so that A.O. could record their statement and find-out the truth. However, assessee failed to do so. Therefore, the doubts of the A.O. have not been cleared by the assessee at any stage. The burden is upon assessee to prove the ingredients of Section 68 - in the present case assessee has failed to discharge the onus lay upon it to prove such ingredients. No justification to interfere with the Orders of the authorities below in making and confirming the addition - Decided against assessee. - ITA.No.3298/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2020 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.A. For the Revenue : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed were supplied to the assessee. The objections of the assessee against the reopening of the assessment were disposed of. The assessee company is engaged in carrying business of investment in financing related activities. As per the seized annexure, the assessee company has taken the accommodation entry from M/s. Finage and Finance India Ltd., amounting to ₹ 6 lakhs. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, assessee has furnished copy of the share application form, copy of the bank statement and copy of the ITR etc., in respect of its claim of having engaged in genuine transaction. In order to verify the claim of assessee, notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the party from whom assessee had claim to have received share capital. In compliance to the notice, M/s. Finage and Finance India Ltd., has filed confirmation, bank statement and copy of the ITR. On perusal of the bank account, it revealed that there have been regular debit and credit entries of equivalent amount within a span of 2 to 3 days. Such is a general phenomina in the case of entry providers. The assessee company was asked to produce Principal Officer/Director of the concern for examinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Dated 09.08.2019 have decided the identical issue. Copy of the Order is placed on record. It is stated that in the said order the Tribunal decided two appeals of the assessee and other appeals of M/s. R.K. Khemkha Enterprises vs., ITO for several years. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that in the said order the Tribunal has confirmed the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the I.T. Act and dismissed this ground of appeal of assessee. However, he tried to distinguish that the said decision is not applicable in the case of assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee on merits submitted that in the said order the Tribunal has deleted the addition on merits and in the case of assessee for the A.Y. 2010-2011 the matter has been remanded to the A.O. to examine the issue afresh. He has further submitted that assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences on record to prove that addition on merit is wholly unjustified. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Assessee was required to explain whether assessee is willing to produce the Principal Officer/Director of the Investor before A.O. to prove the genuineness of the transaction in the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the Assessee has not pointed out any distinguishable facts, therefore, no infirmity is found with regard to reopening of the assessment. Further, the A.O. has recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment based on material collected during the course of search operation in the case of Shri S.K. Jain and Shri V.K. Jain. Therefore, reliable and cogent evidences were found during the course of search and such information was considered genuine on which A.O. formed his opinion for reopening of the assessment, therefore, reopening of the assessment is valid in the matter in issue. We also rely upon Judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Avirat Star Homes Venture P. Ltd., vs., ITO Others [2019] 411 ITR 321 (Bom.) and Judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Geetanjali Credits and Capital Ltd., [2019] 411 ITR 338 (Del.). Thus, there is no merit in this ground of appeal of assessee qua reopening of the assessment into the matter. This ground of appeal of Assessee is dismissed. 11. As regards addition on merit of ₹ 6 lakhs under section 68 of the I.T. Act, we find that assessee has though produced the docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the Order of the Tribunal Dated 09.08.2019 in which in some year the addition have been deleted on merit and in A.Y. 2010-2011 the issue on merit have been remanded to the A.O. for deciding the issue afresh as per Law. After going through the said decision Dated 09.08.2019 (supra), we find that Tribunal has categorically recorded its finding in para-23 of the Order that no where has it been stated by the A.O. in his order that any summons under section 131 was issued to these companies or to their Directors whose details were provided to him, referred to ensure their attendance. However, such facts are mentioned by the A.O. in the impugned assessment order that assessee has failed to produce Principal Officer/Director of the Investor before the A.O, therefore, the said decision of the Tribunal Dated 09.08.2019 (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts with the present assessment order. Learned Counsel for the Assessee has also failed to show willingness of the assessee to produce Principal Officer/Director of the Investor Company before A.O. at this stage. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal would not be applicable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
