TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not the Assessee. The addition of the commission amount, if at all, had to be made substantively in the hands of Mr Gupta and of the amount of investment in the hands of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries. Consequently, the Court is of the view that the reasons to believe as recorded by the AO did not satisfy the requirement of Section 147 (1) of the Act as regards the formation of opinion that the income of the Assessee had escaped assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA 86/2015 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Ashok Kr. Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel. For the Respondent : Ms Rashmi Chopra, Advocate and Mr Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 0.5% to 1.5% of the entry amount. Mr Gupta then proceeded to also give an example as under: I, elaborate-suppose entity A requires fund of ₹ 1 crore, it is asked to give ₹ 1,00,50,000/- crore. This amount is then routed in the system by way of selling already acquire shares of other companies. Once, this money of ₹ 1 crore enters the account of my company that entries are parted/given to A . In this way unaccounted money of A goes in his hands as loan/share application money/share money etc. in the name of my company which practically and reality did not have any asset. In this process my income is only ₹ 50,000/- received as commission. (emphasis supplied) 3. The above statement of Mr Subodh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, the AO proceeded to make protective assessment by way of reopening of assessment of the assessee appellant company without being a substantive assessment on the date of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act which is not permissible as per decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M.P. Ramchandran v DCIT (2009) 32 SOT 592 (Mumbai) and Sursh K Jajo v. ACIT (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mumbai). Accordingly, it was concluded that the AO erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) in reopening the assessment. 5. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr Manchanda learned counsel for the Revenue and Ms Rashmi Chopra counsel for the Petitioner. 6. The reasons for the reopening of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
