9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of the petitioner. In the objections raised by the petitioner as well as in the present petition ,such a ground has been specifically taken. Revenue is unable to dislodge this factual contention. Revenue is unable even prima facie to point out that there was actually a transaction of transfer of fund of 5 lacs from Brightsun Travin Private Limited to the petitioner during the year under consideration. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is correct in contending that the Assessing Officer has proceeded completely on wrong premise. When the reason itself is found to be erroneous and when this is the sole ground for reopening of the assessment, impugned notice must be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-10 were ₹ 3.33 lacs in contrast the average balance in these received from clearing as well by transfer from other firms. During the course of inquiry, it is also noticed that the summons were issued to Sankar Dubey & Parimal Agarwal but returned back and also summons issued to the Principal Officers of Orchard Pvt. Ltd., Kalimata Suppliers Pvt. Ltd Dolphine Shoppers Pvt. Ltd and Suniyojit Agencies Pvt. Ltd. but no response has been received from the side of the companies. Further, on verification from bank statements of the companies i.e. Orchard Pvt. Ltd Kalimata Suppliers Pvt. Ltd Dolphine Shoppers Pvt Ltd and Suniyojit Agencies Pvt. Ltd it is seen that the companies received fund by transfer/clearing from various entities an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to be taxed u/s. 68 of the IT Act. 5. In view of the discussion above, I have reason to believe that the income of ₹ 5,00,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 2011-12 as per the provisions of section 147 due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials facts necessary for its assessment for A.Y. 2011-12." 3. The petitioner raised objections to the notice of reopening under communication dated 05.07.2017. Such objections were rejected by an order dated 11.07.2017 by the Assessing Officer. Hence, this petition. C/SCA/21107/2017 ORDER 4. Conscious of the fact that the original assessment was not scrutiny assessment, counsel for the petitioner raised a single contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
