TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation @ 12.5% on the purchases - We find that the AO incomplete disregard to the details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings mentioned by him at para 4.3 of the assessment order and without a finding that the party who gave the statement before the Director of Income Tax (Inv), Mumbai named the assessee to whom they have provided any accommodation bills, has made an estimated addition of ₹ 33,46,408/-. Thus following the ratio laid down in the decisions mentioned hereinbefore, we direct the AO to delete the estimated addition of ₹ 33,46,408/-. Thus the 2nd ground of appeal is allowed. - ITA No. 4567/MUM/2017 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2019 - SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... five parties namely (i) Aadi Impex, (ii) Avi Exports, (iii) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., (iv) Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd. and (v) Sun Diam. The AO further found that during the course of search proceedings on Shri Rajendra Jain Group, Shri Sanjay Chaudhary Group and Shri Dharmichand Jain Group, their respective statements were recorded, wherein they admitted that accommodation entries to the tune of ₹ 2,67,71,269/- were provided to the beneficiary assessee to reduce its tax liability. During the course of reassessment proceedings, in response to a query raised by the AO to file details of transaction made with the above parties during the year under consideration and other complete details, the assessee submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed the estimation @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases and thereby upheld the addition of ₹ 33,46,408/- made by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that without proper application of mind, the AO has issued notice u/s 148 in the present case reference is made to the following paragraph of the reasons recorded : As the assessee was found to be one of the beneficiaries who has availed accommodation entries of share application money and on the basis of the aforesaid material available with me now, it is seen that the assessee company has brought bogus share application money during FY 2007-08. Thus there is escapement of income of ₹ 2,15,13,166/- for AY 2008-09 within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,408/- made by the AO and then confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. In respect of the grounds of appeal against the reopening of assessment u/s 148, it is found that the AO has reopened the assessment which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on the basis of information received from the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee had taken bogus accommodation bills amounting to ₹ 2,15,13,166/- from five parties namely (i) Aadi Impex, (ii) Avi Exports, (iii) Maulimani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is however to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso. In the case of Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO 340 ITR 454 (Mad), CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. 340 ITR 609 (Mad), it is held that in the case of return of income processed u/s 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement of Rajendra Jain Group Other Groups mentioned in the recorded reason and then relying on case laws made an estimated addition of ₹ 33,46,408/-. The law in respect of the above is well settled. We mention it here. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie his case, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. We find that the AO incomplete disregard to the details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
