9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployees in which huge cash deposits were made. Later on cheques were issued to various beneficiaries disguising the whole transaction as genuine. 3. The letter of the ADIT (Inv.) also provided the list of various beneficiaries who had taken accommodation entries from various companies being floated by Shri Tarun Goyal. As per the said details, the assessee M/s Nancy Sales Pvt. Ltd. has taken accommodation entry of Rs. 5,00,000/- from a company called Thar Steels Pvt. Ltd. floated by Shri Tarun Goyal. Since the assessee was also a beneficiary of accommodation entries of Rs. 5,00,000/- from M/s Thar Steels Pvt. Ltd. a company managed and controlled by Shri Tarun Goyal who was identified to be engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries and had also admitted the same on oath, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 by recording reasons that the assessee had not disclosed its true income and notice dated 26.03.2012 was issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. 4. The assessee filed a letter dated 16.04.2012 stating that the return already filed on 28.10.2007 may be treated to have been filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. The assessee applied for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the addition on merit. So far as the validity of re-assessment u/s 147 is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the said ground by observing as under :- "4.2 I have carefully considered the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant and the cases laws relied upon by appellant. This ground of appeal challenges the legal validity of issue of notice under section 147 read with 148 of the Income Tax Act. In this case assessing officer after receipt of information from the Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department issued notice u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of IT Act on the basis of which the assessment was reopened. In the case of Pratibha Finvest P. Ltd. Vs ITO 14(3), New Delhi [2013] 215 Taxman 0470 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- "9. In the opinion of this Court, the law as it existed always was that if a valid notice under Section 147 was issued by the AO, the scope of scrutiny and final assessment made in the reopening proceedings was not conditioned upon the material which impelled him to issue notice. To hold such a view would be to impinge on the concededly wide power conferred u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law Ld CIT Appeal has failed to appreciate that the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 and issue of notice u/s 148 is illegal and bad in law and consequently the assessment made requires to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law Ld CIT Appeal has failed to appreciate that the impugned order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT Appeal has erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of share application money received by the appellant during the year. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT Appeal has erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 10,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in law in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have summoned the Directors of the applicant companies. No such attempt was, however, made by him. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in our view were justified in holding that the identity of share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions had been established by the assessee." 11. He also relied on the following decisions :- (a) CIT vs. Insecticides India Ltd., 357 ITR 330. (b) ITO vs. Maya Gupta, ITA No.3435/Del/2013. (c) CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd., ITA No.545/2015. (d) SABH Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT, W.P. (C) 1357/2016. (e) Meenakshi Overseas vs. PCIT, ITA No.692/2016. (f) ITO vs. Prateek Securities (P) Ltd., ITA No.78&2823/Del/2013 (g) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metals (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 10. (h) Goodview Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, ITA No.377/2016 (i) Parbhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.2525/Del/2015. (j) Arceli Realty Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No.6492/Mum/2016. (k) ITO vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., ITA No.4122/Del/2009. 12. He accordingly submitted that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer being invalid the entire assessment order should be quashed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
