TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the in the assessment order the AO has, instead of adding a sum of ₹ 78 lakh, even going by the reasons for reopening of the assessment, added a sum of ₹ 1.13 crore. On what basis such an addition was made has not been explained. This Court is satisfied that no error was committed by the ITAT in holding that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA 29/2017 & CM No. 1009/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Mr. Puneet Rai Mr. Gaurav Khetrapal, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Kapil Goel Mr. Mukul Gupta, Advocates ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comprehensive investigation was carried out by the Investigation Wing for identification of entry operators engaged in the business of money laundering for the beneficiaries and on the basis of investigation carried out and evidences collected, a detailed report has been forwarded. In the instant case, the assessee is found to be the beneficiary of accommodation entry from such entry operators as per the transaction mentioned in the enclosed Annexure-'A' of ₹ 1,56,00,000. The accommodation entry provider; have given accommodation entries in the grab of share application money/ expenses/gift/purchase of shares etc. They have worked for commission. The assessee is a company incorporated on 11.09.1998. It is noticed that there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004-05 and consequently has not offered any income for taxation. In the assessment order dated 30th December, 2011 passed consequent upon the reopening of the assessment, the very first line states that the Assessee had filed return declaring income of ₹ 4,38,958 on 31/10/2004 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 04.01.2005. 6. The second glaring error in the reasons was that the total of the accommodation entries was set out as ₹ 1.56 crore. In the same assessment order dated 30th December 2011 in para 2.3 it is stated as under: 2.3 It is pertinent to mention here that in the reasons recorded there was some clerical error as certain single transactions were appearing in multiple and this resulted i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the same conclusion. But that is not the point. The question is of application of mind by the AO to the material available with him before deciding to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 10. In this context the following observations of this Court in CIT v. Suren International (2013) 357 ITR 24 (Del)are relevant: ....In the first instance, we do not find the reasons as recorded by the Assessing Officer to be reasons in law, at all. A bare perusal of the table of alleged accommodation entries included in the reasons as recorded, discloses that the same entries have been repeated six times. This is clearly indicative of the callous manner in which the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings are recorded and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above case, even in the present case, the Court is unable to discern the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. In the present case too, the information received from the Investigation Wing cannot be said to be tangible material per se without a further inquiry being undertaken by the AO. In the present case the AO deprived himself of that opportunity by proceeding on the erroneous premise that Assessee had not filed a return when in fact it had. 14. To compound matters further the in the assessment order the AO has, instead of adding a sum of ₹ 78 lakh, even going by the reasons for reopening of the assessment, added a sum of ₹ 1.13 crore. On wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
