9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is shown in the ledger account. It is therefore apparent that the information which was received by the respondent Assessing Officer with regard to the alleged accommodation entry received by the petitioner assessee seems to be not borne out from the reasons recorded. Thus, from the above reasons, it is clear that the same is contrary to the facts available on record and therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed the jurisdiction for both the years as for the Assessment Year 2016-17 also the amount as already part of the ledger account for the Financial Year 2015-16 and admittedly, there is no transaction with the said entity by the petitioner during the relevant previous years to the Assessment Year 2016-17. Decided in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aper/dummy company for Rs. 6,32,60,378/- and Rs. 27,00,745/- for A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 49,60,000/- for A.Y. 2016-17. 5. The petitioner filed the objections on the ground that the petitioner had repaid the opening balance of Rs. 76,60,745/- of Orange Tradex Private Limited as on 01.04.2014 during the Financial Year 2014-15 being Rs. 27,00,745/- on 02.01.2015 and Rs. 49,60,000/- on 05.01.2015 through the Account Payee cheque. It was submitted that the information received by the Assessing Officer are incorrect and therefore no reopening could have been made by assuming the jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. It was further contended by the assessee that for A.Y. 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 there was no transaction by the assessee with Orange Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is not permissible in the law. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondents submitted that the Assessing Officer has formed the reasons to believe on the basis of information that the petitioner-assessee has availed the accommodation entry of amounting Rs. 6,32,60,378/- and Rs. 27,00,745/- through M/s. Orange Tradex Private Limited during the Financial Year 2014-15, relevant to A.Y. 2015-16. It was further submitted that for the Assessment Year 2016-17 before the Assessing Officer could dispose off the objections, the petitioner has approached to this Court, and therefore, no order could be passed by the respondent Assessing Officer disposing off the objections. 8. It was further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner had repaid the amount of Rs. 27,00,745/- and Rs. 49,60,000/- towards the opening balance of Rs.76,60,745/- as on 01.04.2014 during the year under consideration and there is no other transaction which is shown in the ledger account. It is therefore apparent that the information which was received by the respondent Assessing Officer with regard to the alleged accommodation entry received by the petitioner assessee seems to be not borne out from the reasons recorded. 10. Reasons recorded for A.Y. 2014-15 reads as under:- 2. Brief details of information collected/received by the AO: In this case, information was reflected on Insight Portal. On verification of the information, it is noticed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
