9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assing of the order under section 143(3) of the Act and the date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. AO has only tried to re-visit and reconsider the decision rendered in the earlier regular assessment proceedings on the ground that the addition ought not to have been limited only to Rs.27,27,657/- and ought to have been extended to Rs.3,60,135/-. This, in our opinion, was nothing but a change of opinion on the part of the AO, and therefore, impermissible in law. No hesitation in holding that jurisdictional conditions with regard to section 147 of the Act have not been satisfied in the present case, which makes the order impugned unsustainable in law. Decided in favour of assessee. - DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR VALMIKI SA M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale price of shares to the beneficiaries of the accommodation entry. The value of consideration claim is Rs.30,86,000/- whereas the cost of purchase paid by assessee is Rs.3,58,343/- which is given by cheque to show the purchases as genuine purchases. The sale price received as accommodation entry is nothing but the return of amount in lieu of cash that the assessee would have paid to hawala operators over and above Rs.3,58,343/- paid by the assessee by cheque at the time of purchase of penny stock in FY. 14. Therefore, a sum of Rs.27,27,657/- represents the unexplained investment made by the assessee in cash to obtain the equivalent amount as bogus profit on sale of shares. Alternatively, it can also be concluded that the sum of Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt made by the assessee in cash to obtain the equivalent amount as bogus profit on sale of shares. Therefore, the long term capital gain was held as unexplained investment/income from other sources and not in the nature of capital gain as claimed by the assessee. Findings of the AO : Since it was held in the assessment made that the entire transaction was part of accommodation entry, the entire sale consideration of Rs.30,86,000/- ought to have been held as unexplained investment/income from other sources and no deduction on account of purchase cost of Rs.3,58,343/- ought to have been allowed. Similarly, commission @ 0.5% on Rs.30,86,000/- which works out to Rs.15,430/- ought to have been held as unexplained expenditure u/s.69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y virtue of this order of assessment, the AO added to the income of the assessee an amount of Rs.3,58,343/- under the head income from other sources under section 68 of the Act representing the difference between the alleged sale consideration of Rs.38,86,000/- and Rs.27,15,475/- which was earlier added back to the income of the assessee during the 143(3) proceedings. 6. The main ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire reassessment proceedings are unsustainable as the AO has reviewed the earlier order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 7. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, generally supported the action of the AO in reopening the assessment leading to the passing of the order of assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Ors. Writ Petition No.2031 of 2022 dated 10.01.2023. 12. The Apex Court in ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 had an occasion to interpret the erstwhile provision of section 147 of the Act and observed thus : We may add that the duty which is cast upon the assessee is to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts at the time of the original assessment. Production before the Income-tax Officer of the account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Income-tax Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure contemplated by law. The duty of the assessee in any case does not extend b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
