TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or The Revenue : Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. These four appeals of the assessee arise from different orders of ld. CIT(A), New Delhi vide different assessment years as per the details in the ld. CIT(A) s order. 2. It was brought to our notice by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate, the issue in all the four appeals is identical and therefore once the appeal in the case of Sh. Ranjan Ahuja in ITA Nos. 3896/D/2016 is decided, other appeals having the identical issues will follow the same order. The ld. counsel proceeded to argue in the case of Sh. Ranjan Ahuja. 3. The grounds of appeal taken are reproduced herein below:- 1. That the order passed by the Hon ble CIT(A) is bad i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in confirming the addition of ₹ 4 Lacs made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of gift received by him from Shri Sudhir Sachdeva. 3(b) The Hon ble CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of ₹ 4 Lacs without appreciating the fact that the appellant during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings had filed copy of declaration of gift by the donor alongwith her affidavit, bank statement of the donor and the acknowledgment of income tax return of the donor and therefore the identity of the donor, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the donor stands proved and therefore the question of making an addition in respect of gift received does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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:- Smt. Bindiya Ahuja, G-78, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi In this case an information is received from the O/o the DI (Inv.-I, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi vide office letter No. DIT(Inv)/1/2006-07/AE/1543 dated 5.2.2007 Smt. Bindiya Ahuja has taken bogus accommodation entries from the following parties in lieu of unaccounted money paid by the above named assessee. As per Annexure enclosed with the above letter DIT(Inv. Unit- I), New Delhi dated 5.2.2007 the detail of transaction made by the above assessee is as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 Honhle 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vent of reopening of the assessment has taken place. While the CIT may have proceeded on the basis that the reopening of the assessment was valid, this does not satisfy the requirement of law that prior to the reopening of the assessment, the AO has to, applying his mind to the materials, conclude that he has reason to believe that income 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. 15. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d money paid by the above named assessee. As per Annexure enclosed with the above letter of DIT (Inv. Uni- I), New Delhi dated 5.2.2007 the detail of transaction made by the above assessee as under:- Date Amount Cheuqe no. Name of the party 17.7.2002 400600 2870 Sudhir Sachdeva The relevant assessment year involved is 2003-04 In view of the above facts I am satisfied that Sh. Ranjan Ahuja G-78, Ashok Vihar, Delhi has concealed his income of ₹ 400600/- for taxation. Since the amount income which has escaped assesemnt is more 100000/-, therefore, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
