TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. We further find that the name of the entry provider is not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the A.O. We further find that the AO has mentioned that as per the information available, the amount of RS.30,OO,000/- was an accommodation entry. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT [2008 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that if in the reasons supplied to the assessee, there was no allegation that it had failed to disclose full and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and because of its failure there had been escapement of income Chargeable to tax, reopening of assessment after expiry of four years' from end of relevant assessment year was without jurisdiction. - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal in respect of mechanical approval given by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax without being satisfied himself as required under the law enunciating in Section 151 of the Act. 3. Without prejudice ground no. 1 and 2 above, on the facts of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground in respect of making addition of ₹ 30,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of Share capital raised from five private limited companies, duly assessed under Income Tax Act, in spite of the fact that the Respondent filed confirmation of the respective share holder, copy of share application, copy of bank statement of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ₹ 30,83,120. 5. Against the said order of the Ld. AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 14.11.2014 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee thereby holding that the notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act was not a valid notice and the same was quashed 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal and Assessee is in Cross Objection before the Tribunal 7. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly quashed the notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act. 8. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry companies which has been introduced by them in the form of share capital! premium/loan has escaped taxation. Therefore it is required that these amounts be brought to tax by initiating action under section 148 of incometax Act ,1961 for the A.Y. 2005-06 in the case of above mentioned beneficiary companies. Hence as per the information available, it is worth to mention that taking the accommodation entry after giving the cash and taking the cheque after paving the commission also in cash, as per the statement of the person who are maintaining the affairs of Sh. S.K. Jain Group, was searched u/s 132(1) of IT Act. From the statement it is clear that this amount of ₹ 30,00,000/- was an accommodation entry which has escaped asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to disclose full and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and because of its failure there had been escapement of income Chargeable to tax, reopening of assessment after expiry of four years' from end of relevant assessment year was without jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 329 ITR 110 has held that the reopening on mechanical basis is void even where assessment was not made u/s 143(3) of the Act. Similarly, in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 0051 Hon'ble High Court has held that where the notice u/s 148 was based on report from Director of Income-tax that credit entry in accounts of assessee was an accommodation entry and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements and whether they have stated anything specifically against the appellant. We further find that the name of the entry provider is not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the A.O. We further find that the AO has mentioned that as per the information available, the amount of RS.30,OO,000/- was an accommodation entry. 9.2 We note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi) has held that if in the reasons supplied to the assessee, there was no allegation that it had failed to disclose full and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and because of its failure there had been escapement of income Chargeable to tax, reopening of assessment after ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
