TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the learned CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148, is bad and liable to be quashed 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 learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that 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 148 are bad in the eye of law and are vague. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,16,500/- made by the AO on account of share capital money under section 68 of the Act. 5 (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 11 ,00,000/- made by the AO uls 68 of the Act. (ii) That the addition was made despite the assessee bringing all material evidences to prove the identity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 25.8.2014 filed objections to reopening of case and issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act which was disposed off by the AO vide letter dated 26.8.2014. Thereafter order u/s 143(3) /147 of the Act was passed on 22.9.2014 after addition of unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act of ₹ 11,00,000/- and commission payment of ₹ 16,500/- assessing the income at ₹ 15,98,610/-. 3. Against the Order of the Ld. AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 1.7.2016 has dismissed the appeal of the assesseee and affirmed the action of the AO on the legal issue i.e. reopening of the case u/s. 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as well as on merits. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 224 attaching therewith the copy of acknowledgement of return of income; copy of computation of income; Copy of Audit Report, Balance Sheet and P L Account, copy of Notice u/s. 148 dated 27.3.2014, copy of reply dated 15.4.2014 alongwith copy of ITR and copy of bank statements; copy of notice u/s. 142(1) dated 9.7.2014; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... properly recorded the reasons for reopening by due application of mind, hence, the appeal of the Assessee may be dismissed. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the orders of the revenue authorities and the case law cited by the assessee s counsel on the issue in dispute. In my view, it is very much necessary to reproduce the reasons recorded by the AO before issue of Notice to the Assessee u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is reproduced hereunder:- 'The assessee filed return of income for the A Y 2007-08 on 14.11.2007 declaring income of ₹ 4,82,111/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 24.10.2008. DIT(lnv.) Unit-IV, New Delhi during the course of investigation in tne case of Sh. Tarun Goyal created a number of private limited companies and firms for providing accommodation entries. The directors of these companies were his employees who worked in his office as peons, receptionists etc. The documents were got signed from these employees. A number of Bank Accounts in various banks were opened in the names of these companies and his employees, in which huge cash deposits were made. Later cheques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), New Delhi. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, I am of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. My view is supported by the following judgment/decision:- Pr. CIT vs. G G Pharma India Ltd. in ITA No. 545/2015 dated 8.10.2015 of the Delhi High Court wherein the Hon ble Court has adjudicated the issue as under:- 12. In the present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
