9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no adverse material is available with the Revenue. There is no presumption that the people having smaller income cannot make small savings. Moreover, there is no linkage on record of these persons with White Collar Management Pvt. Ltd., the company allegedly providing bogus entries. Hence, on merits also, the addition is totally on hypothesis which is not sustainable in law. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. - ITA No. 6137/Del./2019 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2022 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash , Sr. DR ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-4, New Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, no assessment can be framed u/s 147/148. 6) That under the facts circumstances of the case the Ld. A.O. has erred under the law while making addition amounting to Rs. 53,900/- being unexplained expenditure which were not subject matter of Notice u/s 148 of the Act. 7) That any other grounds of appeal may be added/deleted or amended at the time of hearing. Therefore, it is prayed that addition of Rs. 27,48,900/- may please be deleted or any other order as deemed fit may please be passed. 8) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the actions of Ld. Assessing Officer in computing the total income of the appellant at Rs.26,78,310/- u/s 147/143(2) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 66,000/- Anil Kumar, Jitnendar Kumar 6,01,000/- Vinita Goel 4,50,000/- Suman Goel 4,00,000/- Ritu Singhal 5,70,000/- Ram Goel 2,58,000/- Total 26,95,000/- AO issued notice u/s 133 (6) of the Act to these parties. AO observed that examination of the bank account showed that there was no single entry of Rs.15,00,000/-. However, assessee has received entries of different amount from the different persons amounting to Rs.26,95,000/-. AO came to the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the name of the beneficiary entry, he did mention the correct name of the assessee. Ld. CIT (A) proceeded to uphold the legality of the reopening. He held that use of different name is a curable defect. Ld. CIT (A) did not address the assessee s objection that assessee s objections have not been replied or disposed off. He also rejected assessee s contention that no addition can be done if the additions on the reasons for reopening are not sustained. He further upheld the lack of creditworthiness of the parties which has been noted by the AO and confirmed the addition of Rs.26,95,000/-. He further upheld 2% commission paid (hypothetical sum) for obtaining the accommodation entry of Rs.26,95,000/- amounting to Rs.53,900/-. 5. Against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
