9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Ajantha Industries [ 1975 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT ] will not be applicable as the jurisdiction invoked by the Assessing Officer who has the power, passed the Assessment Order in assessee s case. Besides this, the contention of Ld. AR is that there is a review of the original assessment order is also not justifiable as the Assessing Officer while giving the satisfaction note has dealt with the different issues after indicating the same in the reopening while recording the reasons. Thus, the additional ground is dismissed. No proper sanction u/s 151 - CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding valid reopening of assessment in absence of valid sanction as required under Section 151 of the Act for which it is pertinent to note that the assessee has not objected the satisfaction at the relevant time and, therefore, the following decisions cannot be applicable in assessee s case. Thus, ground nos.1 2 are dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - Assessee has given the details related to Shukan Finance Investment and also has given the details related to the identity of Shukan Finance Investment as relates to genuineness and credit worthiness. The assessee submitted ITR, computation of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied to the assessee on 18.09.2017. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 06.10.2017 was issued. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company is primarily engaged in the business of construction and as part of Profit Loss account and Balance Sheet as well as notes on items of Balance Sheet, 3CD report and submission of the assessee in respect of work-in-progress revealed that the assessee has debited Rs. 1,02,88,690/- in Profit Loss account as AUDA fees and Rs. 1,11,82,000/- as land development expenditure. The same were allowed by the Assessing Officer but as per Section 68 of the Act wherein any sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory to the Assessing Officer, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee though furnished confirmations, bank statements and copy of returns of all the parties from which it had obtained unsecured loans to prove the genuineness of the transactions, with respect to Shukan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Shukan Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer of jurisdiction, but the same is there mentioned in the Assessment Order which categorically does not require any communication to the assessee as it is an internal transfer for the administrative purpose of the Assessing Officer and the powers are envisaged with the concerned authorities. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Ajantha Industries will not be applicable as the jurisdiction invoked by the Assessing Officer who has the power, passed the Assessment Order in assessee s case. Besides this, the contention of Ld. AR is that there is a review of the original assessment order is also not justifiable as the Assessing Officer while giving the satisfaction note has dealt with the different issues after indicating the same in the reopening while recording the reasons. Thus, the additional ground is dismissed. 9. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding valid reopening of assessment in absence of valid sanction as required under Section 151 of the Act for which it is pertinent to note that the assessee has not objected the satisfaction at the relevant time and, therefore, the following decisions cannot be applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ann.com 300 (Delhi) 19. Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi). 10. As regards to ground no.4 which is on merit, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 4,75,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act was passed ignoring the evidences on record. The Ld. AR has given details as follows :- Particulars Amount Unsecured loan received from Shukan Finance and Investment 3,90,00,000/- Due to mistake amount received from Shukan Developers Private Limited is wrongly credited in the account of Shukan Finance and Investment 85,00,000/- TOTAL 4,75,00,000/- Copy of account of Shukan Finance and Investment from the books of assessee company is annexed at page nos. 69-70 of Paper-book-1 On going through the above account your honour would notice that the loan taken from M/s. Shukan Finance and Investment Services Loan has been repaid in subsequent years which has been accepted by Department. All the transactions are done through bank. It is held in jurisdictional High Court that when all the transactions are through Account payee cheque then the initial burden on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
