9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee has received an amount of Rs. 30 lacs in the form of share capital / share premium from companies / entities engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries in lieu of cash payment by the beneficiary including the assessee by charging commission. Accordingly, reopening proceeding were initiated u/s. 147 of the IT Act , 1961 by recording reasons and after obtaining sanction of the competent authority u/s 151 of the IT Act. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 11.03.2016. The assessee vide letter dated 11.04.2016 submitted that the return already filed be treated as return in response to notice u/s. 148. d 3. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 30 lacs from M/s. VIP Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. He deputed his Inspector to serve summon u/s 131 of the IT Act dated 12.12.2016 to the directors of the company at the addresses available on record. The Inspector reported that the addresses given by the company was fake and no such company actually exists and it is just a paper company involved in providing accommodation entry. The Assessing Officer observed from the balances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the genuiness of the transactions, therefore, no addition is called for u/s 68 of the IT Act. 6. However, the ld. CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee on the issue of validity of reassessment proceedings. He further upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the IT Act on merit. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal:- "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the IT Act by the A. O. was valid in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee failed to fulfil the requirements of section 68 of the Act as per settled law in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3000000/- to the income of the assessee made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter all or any of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the schedule of investments as on 31.03.2009 in the case of M/s. VIP Leasing & Finance Private Limited copy of which is placed at 122 and 124 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the bench to the same and submitted that at Sr. No. 132 the name of the assessee appears towards the investment of Rs. 30 lacs in the shares of the assessee company. Referring to paper book pages from 108 to 126 he submitted that the said company has duly disclosed in its balancesheet regarding the investment in the assessee company and the assessment has been framed u/s 153 C by the ACIT, CC-23, New Delhi and no addition has been made. Therefore, when the investor is identifiable since assessment has been framed u/.s 153 C and 153 A of the IT Act, 1961 and said investor has duly disclosed in its balancesheet regarding investment in the assessee company alongwith so many other companies and no adverse inference has been drawn in the hands of the investor company and since the amount has been received through banking channels, therefore, addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act. He submitted that although these documents were very much available before the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Gupta Vs. ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 17. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO and others [236 ITR 34] 18. R. K. Malhotra ITO Vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) 19. CIT Vs. P. V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) /[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) 20. ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC) / [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) 21. Yuvraj Vs. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) 22. Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). 13. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the case of the assesssee was reopened on the basis of the report of the investigation wing that the name of the assessee appears in the list of beneficiaries who have obtained accommodation entries from companies controlled by Sh. S. K. Jain group of cases who are basically engaged in providing accommodation entries for commission. Since the assessee according to the assessing officer could not satisfy him regarding the identity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the identity and credit worthiness of the share applicant and the genuiness of the transaction. The assessee in the instant case has filed the copy of the assessment order in the case of share applicant i.e. M/s. VIP Leasing & Finance Private Limited. Since the assessment has been framed u/s. 153 C and 153 A, it cannot be said that the assessee is a non existing company or a bogus company. Since this vital evidence was not considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) although the same was very much available with the department during the course of the assessment proceedings, therefore, I deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the assessment record of M/s. VIP Leasing & Finance Private Limited from their Assessing Officer and decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee on merit are allowed for statistical purpose. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
