TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income. Further, the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis and material of the information. There was no dispute that the company, S, had a paid-up capital of ₹ 90 lakhs and was incorporated on January 4, 1989, and was also allotted a permanent account number in September, 2001. Thus, it could not be held to be a fictitious person. The reassessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is bad in law, illegal and wrong on facts. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld CIT(Appeal) has failed to appreciate that the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is against the principles of natural justice and has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. That on the facts and, on the circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld CIT Appeal has erred in sustaining an addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit uls 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Appellant craves the right to amend, append, delete any or all grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on 31.3.2011. In response to the notice u/s. 148 r.w. Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee vide letter dated NIL has submitted on 2.5.2011 a copy of return of income and also requested for the copy of the reasons recorded before initiating the reassessment proceedings. A notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 17.10.2011 and served upon the assessee through speed post, fixing the case for hearing on 25.10.2011. In response thereof, neither anybody attended, nor any reply has been filed by the assessee. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 alongwith questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 4.11.2011 and served upon him through speed post. In response thereto, the assessee on 11.11.2011 has f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has taken any accommodation entry is also not mentioned. No reference is made to any tangible material statement or annexure in support of the information receive on the basis of which reasons have been recorded. From the reasons it is also not clear whether any statement of Smt. Anjali Gupta/ Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta has been recorded or not. Even in the reasons recorded, Pay Order no. mentioned is wrong meaning thereby that the AO has not bothered to even verify the information received with the assessment folder wherein the confirmation/copy of Pay order has already been filed at the time of original assessment u/s 153A. It indicates that the AO has mechanically recorded the reasons and issued the notice without applying his own mind. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACIT, Central Circle- H). New Delhi containing therewith list of beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta for A.Y. 2004- 05. 4. A perusal of the list enclosed with the letter of the ACIT, CC-19, New Delhi reveals that M/s R.K. Arora Sons HUF, who is assessed to tax with this Circle, is one of the beneficiaries and has received accommodation entries from Anjali Gupta, as per details given below: Mediatory Actual Beneficiary Date Ch. No. PO No. Amount Deepak Jain R.K. Arora sons (HUF) 11.3.2004 060927 ₹ 5,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 5 lacs during the financial year 2002-03 as stated in the Annexure. According to the information, the amount received from a company, S, was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assesee was the beneficiary. The reasons did not satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income. Further, the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis and material of the information. There was no dispute that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
