9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no addition on account of alleged credit entries could be made u/s 68 of the Act, particularly for the reasons that the appellant had submitted necessary supporting evidence for the receipt of Share Application Money. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that reopening of the case of appellant had been made on the ground that the appellant had received credit entries from the four Companies under reference and therefore the AO cannot make the addition u/s 68 of the Act taking a contrary stand that these companies are not in existence and their identity had not been proved. 4. That on facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)failed to appreciate that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 19,90,670/- after making the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s. 68 and Rs. 40,000/- u/s. 69C of the IT Act. The reopening of the case was made on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that during the previous year the assessee company was in receipt of accommodation entries of Rs. 20,00,000/- Notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act was issued after recording reasons on 24.03.2011. The assessee replied that the original return u/s 139 be treated to be filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The balance sheet of the assessee reflected that it had received share application money of Rs. 21,00,000/-. The following funds in the current account no. GEN 1776 of Bank of Maharashtra, Greater Kailash was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and submitted evidences in support of its claim. The ld. CIT(A) remanded the same for comments of the AO who vide remand report submitted that summons u/s. 131 of the Act were sent to all the four companies on the addresses given, but no response received. Income-tax Inspector was also deputed to enquire the existence of the above companies, out of which three companies were found non-existent at the addresses provide and one of the companies, i.e., M/s. Tashi Contractors Pvt. Ltd. denied to have made any transaction with the assessee stating that someone is misusing its name. After considering the submissions of the assessee, remand report of the AO and other attending facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order of the AO rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08/Del/2012 decided on 31.03.2015 - ITAT. (vi). Chanderiya Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA No. 657/Del/2015- ITAT. (vii). The Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Delhi) (viii). Govinda Choudhury & Sons v. ITO (1977) 109 ITR 370 (Ori.) (ix). S.P. Agarwalla alias Sukhdeo Prasad Agarwalla v. ITO (1983) 140 ITR 1010 (Cal.). (x). CIT v. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.778/2015 (Del.) dated 13.10.2015. (xi). CIT v. Expo Globe India Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 147 (Del (xii). ITO v. Moksha Securities P. Ltd. in ITA No.6251/Dei/2015 dated 2.09.2016 of ITAT, Delhi. (xiii). ITO v. Reliance Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 1310/Del/2011 dated 18.02.2015 by ITAT, Delhi Bench 'F' (xiv) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10th February 2003, from four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO stated: "I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of above accommodation entries." The above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied his mind to the materials that he talks about particularly since he did not describe what those materials were. Once the date on which the so called accommodation entries were provided is known, it would not have been difficu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Assessee has escaped assessment. Unless that basic jurisdictional requirement is satisfied a post mortem exercise of analysing materials produced subsequent to the reopening will not rescue an inherently defective reopening order from invalidity. . 14. In the circumstances, the conclusion reached by the ITAT cannot be said to be erroneous. No substantial question of law arises." Respectfully following the above decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as also several other decisions of coordinate Benches, we find that the reopening of assessment in the present case is not legally valid and the same is liable to be quashed. Since the reopening of assessment is found invalid ab initio, we need not to enter into the merits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
