9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trading of computer parts and component. Purchases were not made from M/s Danodia Impex Pvt. Ltd. only but purchases were also made from other parties as reflected in the purchase account made - sales account made reveals that sales were made to various parties and it included sales made to the Office of Labour Commissioner - The trading account as made available which also reflects various expenditure inconsonance with nature of business of assessee. AO was not justified to discredit whole of the business activity of assessee for want of certain expenditure and that too without specifically rejecting the books of assessee, to discredit the purchases and make addition. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 4875/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2023 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Rano Jain Adv. And Ms. Mansi Jain, CA For the Department : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as learned First Appellate Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in framing the impugned assessment order and that too by recording incorrect facts and finding and without considering the submission of the assessee and without observing the principles of Natural Justice. 3. That the learned CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the action of assessing officer that amount received against sale is unaccounted money while all the purchases and sales duly vouched, supported with audited books of account and VAT returns. 4. That the authority below erred in law in making the addition of Rs. 3,44,19,731/- being received by the assessee against sale of goods U/s 68 without rejecting the books of accounts and without following the principles of natural justice. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) wrongly reject the assessee grounds that the learned assessing officer never asked to file confirmations of the parties from whom sales and purchases were made and never asked to produce the said parties the learned ITO not used the power to call the party by issue summon U/s 131 of I. Tax Act in case verification required from them. 6. That the appellant was not aware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order. It was submitted that there was complete non-application of mind by the learned AO as there was no mention of the name of entity or the nature of transaction in the reasons and the addition was made on account of reasons recorded. 6.2 Learned counsel also brought before the Bench certain discrepancies in the order of learned CIT(A), which show that irrelevant and extraneous facts have been reproduced in the impugned order by referring the assessee as a company and that having received share application money. 6.3 To support the contentions learned counsel relied on following judgments: (i) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Versus Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 395 ITR 677. (ii) PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Versus G G Pharma India Ltd., [2016] 384 ITR 147 (iii) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., [2017] 396 ITR 5 (iv) Anirudh Kumar vs ITO,ITA No. 1167/Del/2019, dt. 21.07.2022 (v) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) (vi) CIT vs. Jet Airways Other Citation: (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (vii) Rajesh Kumar Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1465/Del/2020, dt. 03.08.2022 7. On the other hand learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be made u/s 68 read with section 147/148 of the Act expecting the assessee to discharge the burden then in the notice u/s 148 or the reassessment proceedings there should be specific show cause to the assessee calling upon the assessee to explain the genuineness of transaction. The matter of fact in the present case is that in the reasons as recorded there is mere mention of the names of Jain Brothers and the fact about search seizure and evidence that they were providing accommodation entries. However, as regard to the assessee there was no material to indicate as to in what form or means and from which entity specifically the entries were derived. The reasons may not be encyclopedic but should be categorical. Thus there is force in the contention of Ld. Counsel of assessee that the reasons as recorded were without application of mind and satisfaction was nothing less than borrowed satisfaction for which it is now settled proposition of law that same are not sustainable for concluding re-assessment. Reliance can be place on the judgements of Hon ble Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Versus Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ( Supra); PR. Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
