9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013. Evidence collected and the statements of various persons recorder including that of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain during search established the modus operandi and led to detection of accommodation entries of approx. 8897 crores. The accommodation entries so taken are in the nature of sales, unsecured loans and share application money. The entry wise data of beneficiaries pertaining to this charge was obtained in the office of the undersigned. As per the information received from DGITInv. II, Mumbai, the following transactions have been carried out by the assessee company during the A.Y. 2012-13: Name of the Investor Amount Nature of Transaction Alka Diamond Ind Ltd. 10,00,000/- Loans and Advances Duke Buiness P Ltd (JPK Trading I Pvt Ltd) 50,00,000/- Loans and Advances Atharv Business Private Limited (Faststone Trad (I) P Ltd) 75,00,000/- Loans and Advances Kush Hindustan Ent Ltd 10,00,000/- Loans and Advances Nakshatra Business P Ltd (Hema Trading Co P Ltd) 93,50,000/- Loans and Advances Olive Overseas P Ltd (Realgold Trading Co P Ltd) 80,00,000/- Loans and Advances Sumukh Commercial Pvt Ltd (Capetwon Mer. P Ltd) 50,00,000/- Loans and Advances Triangu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned notice on the ground that it is without jurisdiction as evident from the reasons recorded in support of the notice for the following reasons : (a) The mere confession/statement by a person that he controlled companies which were providing accommodation entries is not sufficient to give the Assessing Officer reason to be believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In support reliance was placed upon the decisions of Apex Court in Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. 79 ITR 603, Lakhmani Mewal Das (supra) and the decision of this Court in Rushab Enterprises Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (WP No.167 of 2015) decided on 15th April, 2015; (b) The Assessing Officer had during the Assessment proceedings leading to order dated 19th December, 2014 under Section 143(3) of the Act for the subject Assessment Year had raised issues with regard to genuineness and credit worthiness of the very same eight loan providers mentioned in the reasons in support of the impugned notice. The petitioner responded to the same by providing loan confirmation statements, which on examination were accepted. Thus, this is a case of mere change of opinion; and (c) Further relia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctness of the material but only whether the Assessing Officer had reason to believe on the material available that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 7. We find that the reasons in support of the impugned notice indicates that the Assessing Officer has received definite information that one Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain and the companies controlled by him was in the business of providing accommodation entries. On receipt of the aforesaid information, the Assessing Officer called for the necessary information in regard to the accommodation entries made in respect of the assessees in his jurisdiction. Consequent thereto, the Assessing Officer found that the information received indicated that the eight companies mentioned in the reasons belonged to Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain group and formed the basis of his reasonable belief. At this stage the Assessing Officer has merely to establish that there is justification for him to form a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and not conclusively prove the same. The reliance by the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in S. P. Chaliha (supra) rendered in a completely different fact situation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form of loan confirmation to establish its genuineness. Thus, it is submitted that this is a case of change of opinion. We find that the basis of the reopening notice is the statement of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain. This statement prima facie completely negatives the stand taken by the petitioner during the regular assessment proceedings. The exact nature of the transaction is only privy to the parties to the transaction and when one of the parties to the transaction states that what appears is not factually so, then the Assessing Officer certainly has tangible material to form a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In fact, as observed by the Supreme Court in Phoolchand Bajranglal and Anr. Vs. ITO 203 ITR 456 " One of the purposes of Section 147 appears to us to be to ensure that a party cannot get away by willfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn round and say "you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing." It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude." 9. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to place reliance upon the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
