9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground which the Tribunal decided after considering the material on record. As in the decision in case of G G Pharma India Ltd [ 2015 (10) TMI 754 - DELHI HIGH COURT] there was a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 and after relying upon the decision in case of ACIT Versus Dhariya Construction Company [ 2010 (2) TMI 612 - SC ORDER] t held that the the issue of accommodation entry was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 and without forming a prima-facie opinion on the basis of the material and without application of mind to the information, if any collected, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to have concluded that the assessing company introduced its own unaccounted money in its Bank by way of accommodation entries. Whereas, in the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer has considered the material by applying his mind to the information collected from the Central Excise Department preferring to the return of income furnished by the assessee, wherein it was not possible to ascertain as to whether the assessee has taken the transaction which is disclosed during the course of search of M/s. Wonder Packaging Industries Limited or not, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar on two counts, first with regard to the verification of the cash deposits as appearing in the saving bank accounts of the appellant-assessee as per the annual information available with the Office of the Assessing Officer and second with regard to ascertain the transaction of Rs.1,09,99,263/- pertaining to the search and seizure at M/s. Wonder Packaging Industries Limited. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are as under : "In this case, the assessee had filed return of income for the A.Yr.2009-10 on 23.02.2011 declaring total income at Rs.4,78,570/-. As per AIR information received, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.13,27,954/- in the saving bank account of Axis Bank Ltd. during the F.Y. 2008-09. The assessee did not make any compliance in response to verification letter dtd. 08.02.2016 and 29.02.2016 in this regard, Further, Department has received information from Asstt. Commissioner (Preventive), Central Excise, Ahmedabad-Iff, Ahmedabad that R.K. Traders, situated at Mill Kamdar Society, Kalol which is the proprietary concern of Shri Ranjitsinh Kanu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 145(3) of the Act, 1961 and estimated the GP rate of 9.5% on the total sales of Rs.1,44,36,717/-, making an addition of Rs.11,23,617/-. Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.19,456/- towards interest income and as such, made a total addition of Rs.11,43,073/-. 3.6. The assessee being aggrieved by the addition of Rs.11,43,073/- made by the Assessing Officer to the return income of Rs.4,78,570/- preferred Appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The assessee never raised any ground with regard to reopening of the assessment even before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) by order dated 15th March, 2018, dismissed the Appeal of the assessee with regard to all the grounds. 3.7. The assessee therefore, preferred the Appeal before the Tribunal including the ground with regard to challenge to the reopening of the assessment in addition to challenge the addition sustained by the CIT (Appeals) on merits. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Umaidsingh Bhati for the appellant-assessee submitted that the questions of law are raised only qua reopening and the ground raised before the Tribunal was purely a question of law with regard to the reopening of the assessment, the same is maintainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Versus G & G Pharma India Ltd (2016) 384 ITR 0147 (Delhi). 4.6. It was pointed out that in the facts of the said case the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer held to reopen the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961, were held to be not tenable as the Assessing Officer had already considered the aspect of accommodation entry and more particularly, when the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT have proceeded on the basis of reopening assessment was valid and as such, the Tribunal was not correct in law in considering the issue of reopening in the facts of the said case. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case also the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment do not justify the reason to believe on the part of the Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income for the year under consideration. 4.7. Learned advocate Mr.Bhati further invited the attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order which was under challenge before the CIT (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s proprietary firm). The assessee has filed return of income in the year 23.02.2011 but has not mentioned this particular issue/income in the said return related to the transactions. In fact, in respect of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessed opted that the said earlier return filed in February 2011 should be taken as it is. The reopening was done with the prior approval and proper satisfaction and the legal viable reasons. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is bad in law and is not sustainable. Therefore, ground nos.2 & 3 are dismissed." 6. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant-assessee are to be considered in the light of the facts emerging on the record and as found by the Tribunal for rejecting the grounds to challenge reopening raised by the assessee. The Tribunal has considered that the information which formed basis of the reasons recorded on 21.03.2016 categorically mentioned that M/s.R.K.Traders as the proprietory concern of the assessee had business dealing with M/s.Wonder Packaging Industries and the business premises was also used by the assessee. It was also found by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
