9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of simple provisions of that section. We set aside the whole issue in the appeal of AO back to the file of AO with a direction to the assessee to prove identity and creditworthiness of the deposits as well as the genuineness of the transactions. AO should examine the claim of the assessee in light of various statements of entry operators recorded during the course of survey and search and there after decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say initial onus would be on the assessee to prove the cash credit to the satisfaction of ld. AO. AO may carry out the inquiry as well as examination of various persons, if found proper, either directing assessee or by use of powers vested in him, before deciding the issue afresh. - ITA No. 469/Mum/2018, ITA No. 470/Mum/2018, CO No. 193/Mum/2018 (Arising in ITA No. 469/Mum/2018, CO No. 194/Mum/2018 (Arising in ITA No. 470/Mum/2018, ITA No. 466/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2022 - ITA No. 467/Mum/2018, CO No. 191/Mum/2018 (Arising in ITA No. 467/Mum/2018, CO No. 190/Mum/2018 (Arising in ITA No. 466/Mum/2018 Shri Prashant Maharishi, AM And Shri Rahul Chaudhary, JM For the Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and consequently the order passed in reassessment proceedings may be cancelled. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that on the same set of facts which were submitted during the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C, the Learned Assessing Officer has changed his opinion and has concluded that income has escaped assessment. The appellant prays that the reassessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer may be set aside as it is bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that the Lower Authorities have rejected the objection raised by the appellant in the reassessment proceedings without dealing with the issues raised therein. The appellant prays that the reassessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer may be set aside as it is bad in law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly relied upon the statement of Mr. Om Hari Halan, Mr. Mukesh Choksi and Mr. Babulal Agarwal to conclude that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The primary condition, that there should be live link bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information was also received that assessee has taken accommodation entries from Shree Pravin Kumar Jain of ₹2 crores from one Alok Diamond Industries ltd. on various date. Therefore, the assessment proceedings commenced. The assessee was confronted with several findings during the survey and various revelations coming out of the statement of the entry operator. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act wherein the addition of ₹2 crores was made as unexplained cash receipt and ₹6 lacs as the commission. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹2,06,00,000/-. 09. Assessee aggrieved with that order preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed the combined order / consolidated order for A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 in case of the assessee. For A.Y. 2007-08, the learned CIT (A) accepted the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that similar addition under Section 68 of the Act is made in the case of Shree Global Tradefin Pvt Ltd, whose appeals were pending before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He held that while the amounts received through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 sum of ₹43.50 crores is received as share application money which in turn has been deposited as share capital in another company Shree Global Tradefin Pvt. Ltd. 014. During the year, assesseei.e.Vidisha Properties Limited has received ₹2 crores on various dates from Alok Diamond Industries Ltd. which is a company controlled and managed by Mr. Pravin Jain. Naturally, the above sum is found to be credited in the books of accounts of the assessee for which no satisfactory explanation is available with respect to the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and therefore, the addition was made under Section 68 of the Act. 015. The learned CIT (A) deleted the above addition under the pretext that the above sum has been added in the hands of Shree Global Tradefin Pvt. Ltd. He therefore vide Para no. 8.29 has held as under:- 8.29. The AR has also contended that similar addition u/s 68 is made in the cases of the Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. (SGTL) whose appeals are pending before me. While the amounts received through these entities are not genuine and credit worthiness is not there of the 54 entities, there is almost one to one correspondence between am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was deleted for the reason that the money coming from this assessee is supported by the source of this assessee , therefore addition in the hands of ShreeGlobal Tradefin was explained and hence deleted. At page no.246 of that order clearly points that even in the hands of 9 companies [where assessee is also one of those companies], the source of the funds have been explained as emanating from these companies. Therefore, the addition was deleted in the hands of Shree Global Tradefin Limited. 020. We find that a strange dichotomy in the reasons given for deletion of addition in the hands of Shree Global Tradefin Limited and deletion of additions by the learned CIT (A) in the hands of the assessee. Para no 8.29 of order of ld CIT [A] merely said that he queried the ld AO on this aspect. But he ignored provision of section 68 of the Act. 021. There is no evidence available with ld CIT [A] to state that both these companies are conduit. If that be so ,he should have invoked provisions of other laws which he is dutybound to invoke. But he rests his this finding only for deletion of addition in the handsof the assessee. 022. It is not an issue of protective addition as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper, either directing assessee or by use of powers vested in him, before deciding the issue afresh. 026. In the result, the solitary ground of appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is allowed with above directions. 027. As the CO of the assessee on identical facts as covered in CO No.181/Mum/2018 in other appeals was dismissed without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee. We also restore the Cross Objection to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. 028. In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties Ltd, ITA No. 466/Mum/2018 filed by the learned Assessing Officer and CO No. 190/Mum/2018 filed by the assessee are allowed with above directions. 029. ITA No. 467/Mum/2018 and CO No. 191/Mum/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 in case of Vidisha Properties Limited [ same assessee] are also disposed of with similar directions as the facts in that case also are similar except the amount of addition being ₹23.75 crores under Section 68 of the Act. 030. Identical issue is involved in ITA No.469/Mum/2018 for A.Y. 2007-08 in case of Jogia Properties Ltd, where the addition under Section 68 of the Act is ₹4 crores and CO in ITA No. 193/Mum/2018 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
