TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] and CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh, [2008 (5) TMI 200 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ] held that when no addition was made regarding the item in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening of the assessment, the Commissioner could not exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act in order to bring to tax other items of additions. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above case, we hold that in the present case also the Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1838/Del/2015, S.A. No. 380/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the case and under the law, Id. Pr. CIT, Delhi- D7, New Delhi has erred in sending the matter back to the file of the Id. A.O., with the remarks the matter is referred to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the facts, verification of claim of the assessee in the light of position of law enunciated above and to pass an appropriate order after giving due opportunities to the assessee . The observations of the Id. Pr. CIT, Delhi-07, New Delhi are either factually incorrect or legally untenable. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is a company. The return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 was filed, declaring total income of ₹ 37,502/-. The return was not selected for scrutiny a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were then issued to the beneficiaries. In order to disguise his transactions as genuine, Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta has been following 'layering' of accounts, whereby cash was introduced in various bank accounts in the names of proprietary concerns of his employees and beneficiaries were issued cheques from one of his intermediary company after routing the funds among several intermediaries. The above named assessee was found to be a beneficiary of accommodation entries received from Sh Aseem Kumar Gupta/concerns operated by him during the period relevant to A.Y, 2006-07 as per the following specific details :- Name of the Actual Beneficiary Amount (Rs.) Cheque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act at a total income of ₹ 1,01,300/- without making any addition on item for which reasons were recorded for re-opening assessment. Subsequently, the ld. CIT(A) had issued a show cause notice dt. 6th January, 2015 under Section 263 of the Act calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment order passed cannot be set aside as the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the genuineness of the share application money received of ₹ 43 lakhs. In response to this show cause, the appellant had submitted that the very same issue was examined by the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the reassessment and the details such as, names, address, confirmation of the parties from whom the share application mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during the year paid back during the year and closing balance. 19. Details of Share Application money introduced during the year with names/addresses/proofs of identity/Ward-Circle/PAN no./confirmations of subscribers. Give a chart of opening balance of share application money, received during the year, paid back during the year and closing balance. 20. Details of Share Capital/Share Application Money/Share Premium received during the year with names/addresses/proofs of identity/Ward- Circle/PAN/Confirmations of subscribers. 4. He also drawn our attention to page no. B-1 of the paper book wherein, in response to the queries raised vide query nos. 18 to 20, the reply was filed by the assessee. 5. On the other hand, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del.); and the Hon ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.); and the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh, [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj.), held that when no addition was made regarding the item in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening of the assessment, the Commissioner could not exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act in order to bring to tax other items of additions. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court held as follows vide para no. 14 of the said decision: 14. For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be errone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
