9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Assessee : Sh. Suresh Kr. Gupta, CA For the Department : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi in relation to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- 1. The impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with legal requirements of the provisions of section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld AO erred both on facts and in law in reopening the case based on the same set of reasons and the very same material which was considered for passing the original reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and circumstances of the case in upholding the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act which is not properly initiated and therefore need be quashed as the appellants case is covered by proviso to section 147 of the IT Act and that being the case the AO has failed to give a finding as which material facts the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue after the initial onus discharged by the appellant. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and circumstances of the cases in reliance on the material to take view adverse to the appellant without confronting the same and therefore action of the AO is in contravention of the principals of natural justice. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and circumstances of the cases in upholding action of the assessing officer in making an addition of ₹ 5,20,000/- being 2% of the alleged accommodation entries of ₹ 2,60,00,000/- is arbitrary and without basis and therefore need be quashed. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify / amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon ble appellate authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income digitally on 10.9.2010 declaring total income of ₹ 4,460/-. Subsequently, on the information from the office of SFIO in the case of money laundering operation conducted by Jain Brothers through proper channel and also a Report of DDIT (Inv.) UnitITA VI(2), New Delhi. The money laundering operation was conducted by Jain Brothers with the help of 56 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. has submitted its reply and filed documents such as copy of accounts of the assessee; copy of bank statement for the dates 16.3.2010 to 23.3.2010 only and computation of total income, copy balance sheet alognwith audit report. On perusal of details filed, the Assessing Officer found that investee company has not submitted the full ITR but only the acknowledgement and incomplete bank statement which of no resulting to analyse the transaction of the investee company. Further the balance sheet shows mere profit of ₹ 82,225/- and has no credit worthiness. 2.1 As regards the case of M/s Shalini Holding Ltd., notice u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 4.12.2017 was returned back as unserved with the remarks LEFT and in the case of Attractive Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Aasheesh Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. no reply has been received from the parties. Therefore, the three criteria u/s. 68 have not been fulfilled. Reply to the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of M/s sunny Cast and Forge Ltd. was received in the office of Assessing Officer on 21.12.2017. AR of the assessee was asked vide office noting dated 28.11.2017; 3.12.2017 19.12.2017 to produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so drawn our attention towards 09 creditors amounting to ₹ 2,60,00,000/-. No doubt that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has written his written submissions on all the issues i.e. of challenging the assessment order on legal as well as on merits also. He submitted that reopening in the case of the assessee u/s. 147 / 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void ab initio and is liable to be quashed because the reopening of the assessment on the set of reasons and very same material which was considered for passing the original assessment order u/s. 147/143(3) of the I.T. Income Tax Act, 1961 and further upholding the same by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) which was not properly initiated and therefore need to be quashed as the appellant s case is covered by the proviso to section 147 of the I.T. Income Tax Act, 1961 and that being the case the Assessing Officer has failed to give a finding as which material facts, the appellant failed to disclose fully and truly during original proceedings and in the absence of any such finding, the initiation of reassessment proceedings and the impugned assessment order both are bad in law because such proceedings are as a result of change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has been supplied and assessee was given full opportunity for substantiating its claim before the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) for which assessee has failed to establish its claim before the authorities below. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has passed a well reasoned order which needs to be upheld by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities alongwith written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the documentary evidences in the shape of paper book. As per record the assesee filed its original e-return of income u/s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 10.9.2010 declaring income of ₹ 4,460/- which was not selected for regular scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Assessee has attached the return alongwith computation of income in the paper book page 1 2. Later on, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 08.12.2014 which the assessee has placed at page no. 49. The ITO, Ward 4(4), New Delhi has issued this notice on the basis of information provided by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit VI(2), New D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee vide order dated 6.11.2017 which the assessee has placed at page no. 83-89 and completed the assessment u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act by making the addition of ₹ 2.60 crores u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained expenditure for raising the above accommodation entries. Assessee aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide its order dated 09.9.2020 rejected the claim of the assessee. Now the assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 9.9.2020 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal. As stated in the earlier paragraphs the asssessee has challenged the impugned order on various grounds on legal as well as on merits. After hearing both the parties, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has mainly argued that assessee filed its e-return u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 10.9.2010 declaring income of ₹ 4,460/- which was later reopened by the ITO, Ward 4(4), New Delhi by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of the same information about the same accommodation entries and on the same amount of ₹ 2.60 crores which the assessee has received from the 5 entities. But in second time also the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act ). 3. Learned counsel relies upon the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act contending that the Revenue had received information from the Enforcement Directorate with respect to the possible disallowance under Section 68. 4. The Assessee, who is represented by the counsel, urges that the respondent is a non-resident and the amounts were remitted by one M/s. Newheaven Nominees Limited. 5. It is contended that the original assessment was completed after filing of Return, when the net income was declared as ₹ 98,850/-. Soon thereafter, proceedings under Section 148 were initiated culminating by substantial acceptance of the Assessee s arguments and not resulting in any noticeable addition by an order dated 31.12.2007. The Assessee has produced the copy of that Assessment Order. It refers to a letter of the Directorate of Enforcement dated 28.03.2006, mentioning about some transactions by the Assessee. The Revenue appears to have issued a fresh notice under Section 148 on 23.02.2012 and recounted virtually the same facts. 6. In this case, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) appears to have completely ignored the earlier re-assessment order framed un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
