TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total income of the assessee in the assessments completed under section 147/143(3) for both the years under consideration on a different issue, which did not form the basis of belief entertained by the AO as per the reasons recorded, is not sustainable and the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the same. Delete the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) u/s 68 in both the years under consideration and allow these appeals of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2019 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ HZ) For the Appellant : Smt. Lata Goyal, ACA For the Respondent : Shri Debasish Lahiri, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R ORDER These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Kolkata, both dated 27.11.2018 and since the common issues are involved therein, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made by the Assessing Officer to its total income under section 68 by treating the sale proceeds of diamonds as unexplained cash credits. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not find merit in the case of the assessee and proceeded to uphold the validity of the assessments made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) for both the years under consideration and also confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 4. In Ground No. 1, which is identical for both the years under consideration, the assessee has raised a preliminary common issue challenging the additions made under section 68 on the ground that the same are beyond the scope of assessments made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) of the Act. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, invited our attention to the copy of reasons r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id addition is sustainable in law as well as on the facts of the cases. He contended that the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer while making the said addition was logical and since the same was related to the issue raised in the reasons recorded, the addition made by him on this issue, which was not separate, is liable to be sustained. In support of his contention, the ld. D.R. relied on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jayant Security Finance Limited [91 taxmann.com 181]. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the assessments for both the years under consideration were reopened by the Assessing Officer after recording the following identical reasons:- Information received from DDIT(INV), Tech-II, Kolkata vide letter No. DGIT(Inv.)/Kol/Tech-II/19A/201415/2826 dated 12.08.2014, it is revealed that during search proceedings in the case of Praven Kr. Jain, certain beneficiaries of accommodation entries were found in which the assessee was one of the beneficiaries through bogus sales/purchase. The assessee made transactions throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee out of the said purchases. He, however, doubted the corresponding sales claimed to have been made by the assessee since the same, according to him, were unverifiable in the absence of details furnished by the assessee regarding names and addresses of the parties to whom the same were made. He accordingly treated the proceeds of such sales made by the assessee in cash as unexplained cash credits and made addition under section 68. It is thus clear that no addition was made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee in the assessments made under section 147/143(3) for both the years under consideration on account of the alleged bogus purchases, which formed the basis of reopening and the addition was made on account of different issue by treating the proceeds of the corresponding sales made out of such purchases as unexplained cash credit under section 68. 9. In the case of CIT vs.- Jet Airways India Limited (supra) cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, it was held by the Hon ble Bombay High Court that if after issuing a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
