TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O noticed the factum of bogus purchases and accommodation entries and in scrutiny assessment, taxed the same in the manner he thought was appropriate, he cannot be allowed to shift the stand by issuing notice of reopening of assessment. This would be based on mere change of opinion. We may stress on the point that after the assessment was completed, there was no further material available with the Assessing Officer which would enable him to form a belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee. - WRIT PETITION NO. 3568 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2019 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Satish Mody a/w Ms. Aasifa Khan for the Petitioner Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.9.2011 declaring total income at ₹ 28,82,21,589/-. Further, in this case, in information was received from DGIT Inv.) Mumbai, on 2-3-2014, wherein it was informed that the assessee company has obtained accommodation entries / fictitious bills of ₹ 1,40,27,017 and ₹ 6,32,01,012/- from M/s. Millenium Stars and M/s. Little Diam respectively which are concealed to Shri. Pravin Jain and Shri. Bhanwarlal Jain. Further, it was informed that the assesee company had obtained accommodation entries for purchase from M/s. Mayank Impex. Prop. Sanjay Choudhary (HUF) (AAAQS5732R) amonting to ₹ 2,17,30,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed and the order u/S. 143(3) of the Act, was passed on 23.3.2015, assessing tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l material facts necessary for its assessment for AY 2011-12. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income to the tune of ₹ 9,97,05,822/- has escaped assessment and is to be brought to tax in the hands of M/s. Dimexon Diamons Ltd for A.Y. 2011-12. (c). Upon being supplied the reasons, the petitioner raised objections to the notice of reopening of assessment under letter dated 9.10.2018. Said objections were rejected by the Assessing Officer on 15.11.2018. The Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 12.12.2018. The petitioner has challenged the notice of reopening of assessment. By way of amendment, he has also added a challenge to the order of assessment dated 12.12.2018 passed pursuant to such notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 12.12.2018 as being without jurisdiction. Therefore, we are now at the pre-assessment order stage. 5. On merits of the petitioner's challenge to the impugned notice, we may recall that the factum of the petitioner being beneficiary of bogus purchase bills and accommodation entries was within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer even during the original scrutiny assessment. He therefore, passed the order of assessment in which he added a sum of ₹ 84.70 lacs to the income of the assessee by taking profit ration of 8.56% on the total bogus purchases and accommodation entries. Through the reasons, now he wishes to add the entire amount holding a belief that such sum represents the petitioner's undisclosed income. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
