9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unjust and against without any merits. 3. Brief facts of the case is as follows:- Assessee's case was taken up by the Assessing Officer for reopening under section 148 read with section 142(1) after recording reasons and notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on 19.03.2010. The said notice was received back un-served with the postal remarks "no such firm". Accordingly the notice was served by affixture, since there was no compliance from the part of the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) was also issued on 16.08.2010 requiring the appellant to furnish the return of income. The case was fixed for hearing on 27.09.2010 and on the date fixed again no one attended nor did the appellant filed any application for adjournment. Thereafter the Assessing Officer gave a final notice at the address of the Director and the notice is reproduced as follows:- "..........Till date no return of income has been filed by you in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. You are hereby afforded another opportunity to file the return of income and also explain as to why the accommodation entries of Rs. 39,01,750/- taken by you during the year under consideration be not added to your income. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-assessment order dated 06.12.2010 on the same address; and even it received other notices including the appeal notices were also received on the same address except the statutory notice mandatorily required to be served on the Assessee before the re-opening the assessment. Therefore, according to the ld AR the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not issued by the Assessing Officer and the observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee's address could have been changed is totally false and incorrect. It was further submitted by the ld AR that according to Assessing Officer the assessee has furnished balance sheet in which, share application money was shown Rs. 41 lacs and issued capital is of Rs. 1 lac. Thus, total application money and share application was at Rs. 42,00,000/- but according to Assessing Officer he has received the information which is reproduced below and then he went ahead to make the addition based on the said information of DIT(Inv.) "Information was received from the DIT(Inv) that the assessee company was beneficiary of accommodation entries. As per information the assessee has taken the following accommodation entries: Sl. No. Account/ Value Date Name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Jaipur New Rohtak Road 5,00,000 Kuldeep Textiles Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur New Rohtak Road 5,00,000 Sh. Dina Nath Luhariwala State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur New Rohtak Road 4,00,000 Sekhawati Finance Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 6,00,000 V.R. Traders Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 5,00,000 Chintpurni Credits Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 4,00,000 Gang Finvest Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 3,00,000 Kuber Co Sales Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 3,00,000 Shree Gupteshwar Mkt Pvt. Ltd. State Bank of Patiala Darya Ganj 4,00,000 10. Taking our attention to the aforesaid details, the ld AR further submitted that the companies mentioned above are regularly assessed to tax and copy of its PAN and other evidence/proof of identity were submitted and since all the transactions were made through banking channel/ through A/c payee cheques, there cannot be any doubt in respect to the identity of the share applicants. 11. As per the ld AR both the identity of the share application money holders & genuineness of transactions have been proved, because the said share applicant companies are incorporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished, so it was presumed by the AO that the assessee is not interested in furnishing the return or any other documents to substantiate its claim if any. The ld DR further submitted that the AO in his second remand report had conducted a detailed enquiry to trace out the share applicants and for that purpose he had send notice u/s 133(6) dated 2nd July 2012 and the said notice was received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks that "left no such person". Thereafter, AO issued summons u/s 131 of the Act dated 20th July which were also issued to the share applicants and the Income Tax Inspector was entrusted to serve the summons personally on the share applicants. Though the inspector personally visited the said address/ premises of the share-applicant, he could not serve the same. And the inspector has reported vide report dated 20.07.2012 and 23.07.2012 that no such person exists on the said addresses. In the said circumstances, as the share applicants could not be traced, the AO served another notice to the assessee through the inspector on 25.07.2012 informing the assessee that notice u/s 133(6) and summons u/s 131 of the Act remained unserved on the shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that the assessee itself has admitted that it has received the impugned re-assessment order and also the appeal notices of the appellate proceedings in the very same postal address where the AO has sent the statutory notices envisaged under the Act before re-opening the assessment. The assessee has not leveled any malafide motive on the part of the AO to deliberately not to have issued the statutory notices before the re-opening of the assessment order and we find no reason why the AO should make up such report that the statutory notices as per the Act, was issued and sent in the postal address of the assessee and it was returned back with remark "left no such person". When the assessee had admitted to have received the re-assessment order and other appellate notice in the said address where the AO has also sent the Section 148/ 147 notices, we find no reason to disbelieve the AO's report that in fact statutory notices were issued and sent in the said address to be served upon the assessee before the limitation period. The conduct of the Assessee company to file on the last day of limitation some papers before the AO, strengthens the belief of the AO assesse deliberately av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
