TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anything adverse against the assessee -. HELD THAT:- The assessee was found to have transacted with the said company through banking channel and faulted the assessing officer for reopening the assessment based on the statement of Shri Jindal which was a general statement and that the assessing officer assumed that the assessee is a beneficiary of the account. Furthermore, the tribunal pointed out that the just because the assessee had transaction with M/s. Bridge Building Construction Co. Ltd. it cannot be a ground to believe that the assessee s income escaped assessment. It was further held that without any other material as discussed, the conclusion drawn by the assessing officer, merely on receipt of the aforesaid information does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal has committed substantial error in law in dismissing the grounds of the revenue on technical point that the reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was bad in law? iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed in law by holding that assessing officer erred in jumping to the consolation that assessee s income ahs escaped assessment on receipt of certain information and assessing officer could not have formed a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Avra Majumdar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tch advises of the Railways and the copies of the bills raised by the said Bridge and Building Construction Co. Ltd. The name of the parties to whom dispatches of coal was made was also mentioned in the agreement. Therefore, the AO was wrong in observing that no third-party involvement/evidence was produced by the assessee. The assessee duly gave the name of the third party for whom services were rendered. It was also mentioned in the letter dated 20.12.2018 that one Mr. Purushottam Vyas along with his team was supervising the work at Colliery and liaison work with the principles on behalf of Bridge and Building Construction Co. Ltd. The AO did not controvert the submissions of the assessee. The appellant, in reply to the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k for the purpose of accounting; whereas the account from which the bank transactions were made by the assessee with M/s. Bridge Building Construction Co. Ltd. was maintained with IDBI Bank. The factual position was re-examined by the tribunal. The tribunal pointed out that the investigation wing on the strength of the admission made by Shri Jindal, jumped to the conclusion that since the assessee had transacted with M/s. Bridge Building Construction Co. Ltd., the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus bills. The tribunal pointed out that in the reasons recorded for reopening, nowhere the assessee s name has been specifically mentioned by Shri Jindal nor there is anything adverse against the assessee. The assessee was found to have transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
