9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , then Assessing Officer cannot add any other item. He ought to have reopened the assessment again for the purpose of adding those escaped item because that creates an independent circumstance for proceeding against an assessee. There might be various aspects of limitation etc. would come to the rescue of assessee. Thus we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition. Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands. It has also been found during investigation that the source of cash deposited in the accounts of layer-1 intermediary concern have not been established and it was also found that no actual business is being carried out by the intermediary concerns. I have carefully examined the above referred information as well as have gone through the return of income filed for the A.Y. 2010-11 and other statutory returns filed with ROC. Following trail' of cash deposits and subsequent transfers to various accounts/concerns have been found:- Layer Date Particulars Bank Name Account No. Amount Layer 1 24.07.2009 A.K. Traders ICICI 627605500133 1,00,000 Layer 1 01.08.2009 A.K. Traders ICICI Bank 627605500133 6,00,000 Layer 1 01.08.2009 A.K. Traders ICICI Bank 627605500133 7,00,000 Layer 2 24.07.2009 PO Issued DCB Bank 1,00,000 Layer 2 01.08.2009 Kusum Supplier Bank of Baroda 0902020000066 36,80,000 Layer 3 03.08.2009 Heritage Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Bank of Baroda AACCH1520R 36,00,000 Layer 4 03.08.2009 Lokenath Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. (AABCL5519P) Bank of Baroda 09020200000678 18,00,000 Layer 4 03.08.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely Rs. 8,94,55,000/- as unexplained credits with the aid of section 68 and Rs. 26,83,650/- being commission paid by the assessee for arranging this bogus accommodation entry of unexplained credit amounting to Rs. 8,94,55,000/-. He calculated the commission at the rate of 3% and in this way determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 9,21,96,300/-. 6. Before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority, the assessee raised two folds submissions. In its first-fold of contention, it was contended that unless addition was made on an issue for which assessment was reopened, the ld. Assessing Officer cannot make addition of any other income found escaped during the reassessment proceedings. For buttressing its contention, it relied upon - (i) the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Jet Airways (I) Limited (2011) 331 ITR 236; (ii) Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited -vs.- CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Delhi High Court); (iii) CIT -vs.- Mohmed Junded Dadani 355 ITR page 172 (Gujarat High Court). The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has accepted this contention of the assessee raised by way of additional ground of appeal and deleted the additions. Though the ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which reads as under:- "12. In the light of all above facts and circumstances of the case and the settled legal position, the sum of money received by the assessee company during the year, shown as share application money from the aforesaid companies namely: Sl. No. Name of the Company Amount 1. M/s. Myra Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,11,00,000 2. M/s. Saksham Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. Rs.84,00,000/- 3. M/s. Surbhi Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,77,00,000/- 4. M/s. Vemuri Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Rs.43,00,000/-0 5. M/s. True Allinace Managemenet Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs.28,45,000/- 6. M/s. Zenith Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,20,00,000/- 7. M/s. Subhlabh Tradevin Pvt. Ltd. Rs.16,00,000/- 8. M/s. P.L. Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Rs.8,60,000/- 9. M/s. Skylark Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.10,00,000/- 10. M/s. Samriti Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.25,00,000/- 11. M/s. Sunshine Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Rs.38,00,000/- 12. M/s. Aarohi Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Rs.25,00,000/- 13. M/s. Madhur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,10,50,000/- 14. M/s. Mukesh Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Rs.21,00,000/- 15. M/s. Natraj Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. Rs.40,00,000/- 16. M/s. Unique Barter Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also" employed in section 147 cannot be read as being in the alternative. It means that if no addition is being made on an item for which assessment was reopened, then Assessing Officer cannot add any other item. In other words, he ought to have reopened the assessment again for the purpose of adding those escaped item because that creates an independent circumstance for proceeding against an assessee. There might be various aspects of limitation etc. would come to the rescue of assessee. Thus following the Hon'ble High Courts decisions, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition. 13. Since we have concurred with the ld. CIT(Appeals) that these amounts cannot be considered for making an addition to the income of the assessee on the ground that no addition was made for the item for which assessment was reopened, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to indulge in academic exercise, whether addition of Rs. 8,94,55,000/- and commission expenditure of Rs. 26,83,650/- can be added or not on merit? We are of the view that first there should be a jurisdiction with the ld. Assessing Officer to entertain this aspect only, thereafter it is to be decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
