TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the proceedings under Section, read with Section, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the condition and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and In law, in confirming the order passed by A.O as the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the proceedings under Section, read with Section, ignoring the fact that the notice issued under Section of the Act is bad in the eye of the law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO rejecting the contention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e questioned. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in going beyond the scope of his power of enhancement u/s 251 of the Income Tax Act. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.10.2005 declaring income NIL and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, proceedings u/s. of the I.T. Act were initiated by recording reasons on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department vide letter dated 31.3.2009 from Addl. DIT (Inv.) Unit-IV, New Delhi that the assessee is also a beneficiary of taking accommodation entry of ₹ 10,00,000/- in the garb of share application money/share capital/share premium from M/s Taurus Iron Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd., an entity of Shrl Tarun Goyal, an entry provider as unveiled by the Investigation Wing of the Department. Consequently, notice u/s was issued by AO on 26.03.2012 after recording the reasons u/s of the Act. However, no return of income was filed by assessee in response to the said notice. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ITAT, C Bench, Delhi in which on the similar facts and circumstances the issue in dispute has been dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Govind Kripa Builders and Promoters vs. ITO passed in ITA No. 304/Del/2013 (AY 2008-09) vide order dated 19.12.2014 in which Hotel Signatures Pvt. Ltd. decision (supra) was followed. Later the Department went in Appeal before the Delhi High Court, in ITA No. 486/2015 in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sh. Govind Kripa Builders Pvt. Ltd. which was dismissed on 4.8.2015 by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. Hence, he requested that the reassessment proceedings may be quashed. 6. In this case, Notice of hearing was sent to both the parties, in spite of the same, none appeared on behalf of the Revenue nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the Revenue, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua Revenue, after hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the records. 7. I have heard Ld. Counsel of the assessee and perused the records. I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has not provided the details of the persons who has given this share capital/ share premium / share application money in its return of income, but the entry providers has categorically stated that they had provided share capital/ share premium/ share application money after receiving cash from the beneficiaries. The categorical admission of the entry provider as well as the finance statement of the assessee clearly points out the fact that the transactions entered by the assessee are not genuine. I, therefore, have reasons to believe that this amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- represents income of the assessee chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for AY 2005-06. The necessary approval u/s. 151(2) may kindly be accorded for issue u/s. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 05-06. 16.1 I find considerable cogency in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar and identical to that of case of Shri Govind Kripa Builders and Promoters vs. ITO, decided by the C Bench, ITAT, New Delhi in ITA No. 304/Del/2013 (AY 2008-09) vide order dated 19.12.2014 (in which one of the Judicial Member was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had introduced money amounting to ₹ 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 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 proceedings were not valid and were liable to be quashed. 17. In view of above, I am of the considered view that above issue is exactly the similar to the issue involved in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
