9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on such wrong reasons cannot be upheld. No fresh tangible material has come into the possession of the AO, which could trigger re-opening in this case. The transaction with M/s. Rexnox Trexim Pvt. Ltd. was fully disclosed and it is not fresh material. All the other sentences in the reasons recorded are general and vague and it is not known how these observations are relevant to the assessee company. Re-opening of assessment is bad in law on this ground also. Coming to the merits of the case, the assessee had received ₹10 lakhs in cash through banking channels and he has repaid the same along with interest after deducting tax at source. The details of the company from which the amount was received were filed. Under these circumstances, the question is whether the addition can be made u/s 68 - Assessee has explained the credit in question and as the amount has also been repaid along with interest, the addition in question made u/s 68 of the Act is bad in law. Hence we delete the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2609/Kol/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2020 - Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. S.K. Kandoi And Sh. Nikhil Kan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession of the AO warranting re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee relied on a number of case law in support of his arguments. I would be referring them as and when necessary. 6. On merits, it was submitted that the amount taken as loan was repaid and the cash credit was explained and evidences furnished to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of the transaction. 7. The ld. DR on the other hand opposed the contentions and submitted that the assessee is part of the chain of jama-kharchi companies and had no real business. He submitted that the re-opening was based on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. He took this Bench to the reasons and submitted that the AO has sufficient material to come to a conclusion that income subject to tax might have escaped assessment. He relied on the order of the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). On merits, he submitted that the cash credits of ₹10 lakhs was not explained. 8. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and case laws cited, I hold as follows. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in the form of bogus share capital/share premium, pre-arranged bouts LTCG/LTCL unsecured loans etc. to various beneficiaries/parities in lieu of commission in cash. On examination of the bank statement of the above mentioned concern and the concern mentioned in the information, it is observed that these account have frequently been used for depositing of unaccounted cash which were layered through the several bank accounts of jamakharachi/shell companies including the concerns named in the information and immediately transferred to the interlinked bank accounts and then ultimately to the bank accounts of the beneficiary. In this way the following beneficiary companies have brought back their unaccounted income into their regular books of accounts in the guise of bogus share/share premium, prearranged bogus LTCG/STCL, unsecured loans etc. There was no other financial rationale behind such transactions. Movement of unaccounted/fund of ₹ 22.36 crores through the above 13 bank accounts have been made and 52 ultimate beneficiaries have been identified. 4. As per the information received from Investigation Wing it is seen that the assessee company M/s. Bajaj Parivahan Pvt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been repaid within the same year. On these facts, it is wrong on the part of the AO to record at para 7 of his reasons that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Merely alleging that there is failure to disclose, would not serve the purpose. In this case, a factually wrong allegation has been made that the amount of ₹10 lakhs has not been fully and truly disclosed. Re-opening of assessment on such wrong reasons cannot be upheld. 12. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT and another (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del) held as follows: Merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to reopen assessments beyond the four year period indicated above. The escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the asses see to disclose material facts, fully and truly. This is a necessary condition for overcoming the bar set up by the proviso to section 147. If this condition is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action under section 147 could be taken. 13. Similar view has been taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
