9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2007. Such return was accepted without scrutiny in terms of section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). To re-open such reassessment, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice. He has recorded following reasons for issuing notice for re-opening. "Assessee has filed return of income on 15.11.2007 at total income of Rs. 13,22,04,630/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Further information has been received from from DDIT(Inv)-III(2), Mumbai that that a search and seizure action was carried out in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain group on 1.10.2013. In the statement recorded during the course of search Shri Pravin Kumar admitted that the only activity carried out by all concerns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lanet Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd. Controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Similarly, Subhalaxmi Group engaged in the business of manufacturing of textiles, had taken accommodation entries of bogus shares capital from various entry providers including the concerns of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. In his statement recorded on oath under section 132(4), Shri Yogesh Agarwal, promoter of the group admitted that such entries of share capital are in the nature of accommodation entries only. The above search findings corroborates that all the concerns run, controller and operated by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain are indulged in the activity of providing accommodation entries only. From the information received it is seen that the assessee has taken accommodation e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the petitioner submitted that the Assessing Officer had abandoned reasons which were foundation for issuance of the impugned notice. On this single ground, he challenged the notice for re-opening. To establish this ground, he invited our attention to the portion of the objections raised by the petitioner in which it was stated as under: "2. From the reasons recorded, it may pleased be seen that the company has received the share application money of Rs. 12,61,70,000/- from the following three parties as under: Sr.No. Name of Hawala entry operator Amount Rs. Date Nature of transaction 1 Kunal Gems 6,34,00,000 20.09.2006 Bogus Investments/ share applications 2 Natasha Enterprises 3,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. In this context, we may refer the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P.Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 in which it was held and observed as under: "13........In the scheme of things, as noted above, the intimation under section 143(1) (a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment. The distinction is also well brought out by the statutory provisions as they stood at different points of time. Under section 143(1)(a) as it stood prior to April 1,1 1989, the Assessing Officer had to pass an assessment order if he decided to accept the return, but under the amended provision, the requirement of passing of an assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the petitioner's sole contention of the Assessing Officer having abandoned reasons for re-opening the assessment while dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the share application money, it was stated as under: "6. The undersigned has gone through the objections filed by the assessee. The sole objection of the assessee is that the information on basis of which the reopening has been initiated is erroneous and ill conceived. As per the reasons recorded the company has received share application money from the three parties tabulated below. S.N Name of Hawala operator Amount Date Nature of transaction 1 Kunal Gems 6,34,00,000 20.9.200 6 Bogus Investments/Sha re application 2 Natasha En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries of the nature of bogus share capital, bogus unsecured loan or bogus sale/purchase entries. c. The assessee has nowhere denied that it has not made any transaction with the three concerns. The reason being that the accommodation entries must have been routed through Banking channel, for which the trail cannot be obliterated by the assessee. However, the accounting treatment of the same is in control of the assessee and it has accounted the transactions with the three entities in head other than Share capital/bogus investment i.e. as Sale transactions. d. It can be easily presumed that entities which have no real business besides facilitating accommodation entries were not capable of such purchase of bullion/jewellery. Thus assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
