TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e material information, which the petitioner withheld, and did not disclose, was that it was dealing with an entity who was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. Assessing Officer had very good reasons to believe that the amounts received by the petitioner from Moral also partake of the same colour as the other transactions of Moral undertaken with other entities. The whole business model of Moral, as is evident from the Investigation Report, was merely to rotate funds by resort to a process of layering through other entities such as M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., M/s Progressive Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd, M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd., M/s Forward Minerals Metals Private Limited etc., taken note of in the Investigation Report. It appears from the Investigation Report that Moral had nothing to show for, to establish the undertaking of any genuine sale and purchase, of much less of the products that the petitioner claims to have sold to Moral. Argument on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner had fully disclosed the transactions undertaken with Moral, there is no suppression on the part of the petitioner and that it could not be said that inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hooti Malhotra, Advocate. VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 53160/2019 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13036/2019 and C.M. No. 53159/2019 3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the notice dated 31.03.2019 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in respect of the Assessment Year 2012-13, and the proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner also seeks a restraint against the respondents from proceeding with the framing of assessment under Section 147/ 148 of the Act. 4. The notice dated 31.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Act is addressed to the petitioner M/s Vedanta Limited as the successor of M/s Sterlite Industries Private Limited (SIPL). The petitioner was provided with the reasons for re-opening the assessment. The crux of the reasons is that SIPL had received an amount of ₹ 90.32 crores in the FY 2011-12 from Moral Alloys Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Moral), and investigation had shown that Moral was heavily engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries, thus giving rise to the belief that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements of two bank accounts of Moral were investigated. In respect of Account No.911020042960662 opened on 23.08.2011, for FY 2011-12, the total inflow and outflow were found to be ₹ 2,89,11,30,738/- and ₹ 2,87,58,32,620/- respectively. Almost all funds credited in the bank accounts were transferred further to other entities and accounts on the same day, leaving minimal balance. 7. Another bank account of Moral with Punjab National Bank was also examined by requisition of the bank account statement. The same disclosed total inflow of ₹ 25.10 Crores and outflow of ₹ 24.98 Crores. This account also showed similar trend of activity, namely, the amounts were transferred out to other entities on the same day on which the account was credited with monies. During the Financial Year 2011-12, SIPL received ₹ 90,32,00,000/-, which the petitioner claims to be the sale proceeds. The investigation report also notices the ITR profile of SIPL for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 8. Significantly, the investigation report states that summons were issued to Moral on 13.03.2019 to furnish a detailed note of its business activity carried out during the period 2011-12 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions with the said four companies during the financial year 2011-12. The income shown by majority of these entities in their ITR for assessment years 2012-13 were miniscule, compared to the volume of their banking transactions with Moral Alloys Private Limited and also the turnover reported by them in their ITRs.. Investigation also showed that Moral had transferred substantial amounts, inter alia, to SIPL, which merged with the petitioner, to the tune of ₹ 90.32 crores during the financial year 2011-12. The two entities with whom Moral had the highest money transactions were M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Misawa Impex Pvt. Ltd. The amounts credited into the account of Moral, as depicted from the account of Moral, in respect of both these entities were almost equal. Moreover, the amounts credited into the account of Moral from these two entities were further transferred to other entities on the same day and the accounts of Moral were left with minimal balance. The Investigation Report contained the analysis in respect of the ITR of Moral for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The same has been extracted by the Assessing Officer in his reasons and it reads as follows: 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Assessing Officer; the findings of the Assessing Officer, and; the reasons for formulation of his belief. The same reads as follows: 3. Analysis of information collected/received: 3.1 I have perused and analyzed the information available with this office. The following facts emerged from the inputs which are mentioned above:- The assessee M/s Sterlite Industries Pvt. Ltd. (now merged into Vedanta Ltd.) is one of the beneficiary in case of Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and has received accommodation entries from Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has received accommodation entries to the tune of ₹ 90,32,00,000/- from round routing of funds through Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. In the investigation report mentioned above the modus operandi of cash deposit and cash withdrawal has been duly noted. After each withdrawal account was left with minimal balance. There is exceptionally high turnover. Further summons issued to Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd, by the Investigation Wing has not been complied in law and spirit as discussed above. Several round routing of funds have been established in the investigation report, Further, field investigation have shown that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vity, trend of transactions raised the suspicion. Account had seen exceptionally high turnover in a short span of time and that too, by recording to and fro transactions with the same group of entities in a similar trend. In this back ground enquiry has been done for FY 2011-12 only and findings are discussed below accordingly. 3. The ITR profiling of Moral Alloys Private Limited is tabulated below: AY 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Gross Sales/Turnover (in Rs.) 6,08,95,72,648 4,65,51,78,891 11,56,68,567 4,92,65,500 3,40,32,938 Gross Total Income (in Rs.) 3,97,538 12,27,252 2,24,320 2,54,338 1,65,413 Total Tax Payable (in Rs.) 1,29,490 3,79,220 69,315 78,591 51,112 The directors of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 Total Tax Payable 2,76,65,03,940 5. In furtherance of the investigation, summons was issued to Moral Alloys Pvt Ltd . on 13.03.2019 to furnish a detailed note on its business activity carried out during 2011-12 to 2015-16, explanation for offering very low income for taxation despite very high turnover/ gross sales during the said period with supporting documents along with other relevant details. The Inspector, OCM Cell-2 was deputed to serve the summons at its registered address as per latest ITR; however, though the address was there, no entity in the name of Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ever existed at the said address. Subsequently, summonses were issued to Sh. Deepak Bansal and Nitin Kumar, directors of the company at their residential address (as per their latest ITRs) on 13.03.2019 and Inspector, OCM Cell-2 was deputed to serve the said summonses, but they' also could not be traced out at the said addresses and no one in the vicinity had ever heard about them. Further, MCA data of Moral Alloys Private Limited and KYC documents submitted to the bank were analysed but address provided in those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Pvt. Ltd and Unnati Alloys Pvt Ltd. The transactions done by Moral Alloys Pvt Ltd with these entities are tabulated below for FY 2011-12- Transactions done by Moral Alloys Pvt Ltd with these entities Sales to Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (Dr.) (In Rs) Purchase from Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (Cr.) (In Rs) Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd. 20,00,000 Progressive Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1,75,00,000 JBN Impex Private Limited 20,00,000 Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 8,70,50,000 1,18,54,08,494 9. From the ITR profile, as mentioned in Table A at para 6, it is observed that the income shown by majority of these entities in their ITRs of AY 2012-13 are miniscule as compared to the volume of their banking transactions with Moral Alloys Private Limited and also the turnover reported by them in their ITRs. Therefore, comparison between transactions made by these entities with Moral Alloys Put Ltd and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 025200169 for FY 2011-12 Total Credit (INR) 2,43,76,40,456.85 Total Debit (INR) 2,42,87,26,207.60 It is seen from both the above bank statements that almost all fund credited in the bank account is transferred further to other entities on the same day and accounts are left with minimal balance. 12. In furtherance of the investigation, ITR of Moral Alloys for AY 2012-13 has been analysed and found following facts- Total sales/ gross receipt of business and purchases shown by Moral Alloy Pvt Ltd for FY 2011-12 were ₹ 608.95 Cr and 608.21 Cr respectively. Balance sheet of Moral Alloys Pvt Ltd for AY 2012-13 does not support any significant loan advanced by Moral Alloy (loan advanced worth ₹ 2.03 Cr only) or received by it (Rs zero) as on the year end date. Therefore, transactions done by Moral Alloys Pvt Ltd with above mentioned entities vide para 5 appear to be mainly in the nature of sale and purchase. Moral Alloys Pvt Ltd claimed very less operational expenses for FY 2011- 12 against huge revenue from sales of ₹ 608.95 Cr. It c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pletion of original assessment, hence, no inquiry was conducted on this issue. The above report was received on 29.03.2019 and it has been perused thoroughly. It is evident that the assessee has received accommodation entries and as a result of which income of ₹ 90,32,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147. In view of the facts discussed above, I have reasons to believe that the income of Rs: 90,32,00,000/-, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment and re-assessment proceeding u/s 147 for the AY 2012-13 is required to be initiated u/s 147. Discussion on change of opinion It is pertinent to mention that though assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) in the above case but there was no formation of opinion by the AO on the above issues as no specific questionnaire on the above issues were raised by the AO nor there was any submission on the above issues by the assessee. Thus, it is not a case of change of opinion as for the change of opinion there has to be an opinion first. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-VI, New Delhi v. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 200 (De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. v ACIT (W.P. No.44311 of 2016, 10.10.2018) has held that if the assessment is finalised, the reopening in respect of the escaped assessments can be made if any new materials or suppression of materials are identified. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in case of M/s Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand Others CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5390 OF 2007 that Audit Objection is an information . The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of M/s. GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. Pr. CIT-3 W.P.(C) 12277/2018, C.M. APPL.47539/2018 has also held that Audit Objection is information for the purpose of Section 147. No full and true disclosure in the original assessment proceeding There was no full and true disclosure by the assessee as the assessee failed to disclose that it has received accommodation entries from the above Company. Explanation to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is reproduced below:- Production before the Assessing officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... too plain to permit an argument that the duty of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts would stand discharged when he produces the books of account or evidence which has a material bearing on the assessment. The Hon'ble Court has observed that:- It is the duty of the assessee to bring to the notice of the Income tax Officer particular items in the books of account or portions of documents which are relevant. Even if it be assumed that from the books produced, the Income- tax Officer, if he had been circumspect, could have found out the truth, the Income tax Officer may not on that account be precluded from exercising the power to assess income which had escaped assessment. Thus, neither this is a case of change of opinion. nor there was a full and true disclosure by the assessee. Therefore, I have reason to believe that ₹ 90,32,00,000/- has escaped assessment and its unexplained. It is evident that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for this year by the reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Therefore it is a fit case for the issuance of notice u/s 148 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which may raise doubts about their genuineness, is no reason to suspect all transactions undertaken by Moral, including those with SIPL, and that SIPL is only concerned with its transactions with Moral, and nothing more. 13. In the light of the aforesaid submission, we directed the Revenue, who was represented on advance notice, to produce the Investigation Report before this Court in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing. The matter was adjourned to 19.12.2019 for the said purpose. On 19.12.2019, it was further adjourned to 20.12.2019, when it was heard. 14. Ms. Malhotra, learned senior standing counsel produced the Investigation Report, which is referred to, and forms the basis of the impugned notice, in a sealed cover. The same was opened and report perused by us. A perusal of the said Investigation Report reveals that there is no such distinction sought to be made with regard to SIPL, or any other entity, in the said report. The said Investigation Report does not carve out SIPL as an exception, and does not state that the transactions undertaken between Moral and SIPL were found to be genuine, unlike the other transactions undertaken by Moral with other entities name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to believe and not that the omission and escapement of income is established. 18. We have dealt with similar submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, in several other decisions recently. It is obvious that whenever an assessee takes or provides accommodation entries, one part of the transaction would appear to be completely transparent; through banking channels, and the recipient of the funds would disclose the same in his returns and offer the same to tax if such receipts constitute income liable to tax. The mere disclosure of a part of the transaction in its records by the assessee is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transaction. In RDS Project Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi Anr., W.P.(C.) No. 11274/19 decided on 23.10.2019 , the petitioner s assessment was sought to be re-opened under Section 148 of the Act on the premise that it had received funds from two entities viz. M/s Shail Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s New Delhi Credits Pvt. Ltd. two companies promoted by one Tarun Goyal. We rejected the challenge to the re-opening while observing as follows: 38. We are not suggesting that all mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction would justify formation of the reasonable belief that taxable income has escaped assessment in the light of the scheme of Section 68 of the Act, which provides that cash credits which, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer are not satisfactorily explained, would be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee. The subsequent acquisition of knowledge that the monetary transaction (including of the kind discussed above) undertaken by the assessee was with a bogus entity/ person-such as an accommodation entry provider which knowledge was not available to the Assessing Officer at the time of completion of the scrutiny assessment, would be a material change of circumstances, and the formation of belief that taxable income has escaped assessment would not suffer from the taint of simplicitor change of opinion. (emphasis supplied) 19. In this decision, we also noticed the decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- I v. NRA Iron Steel Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) decided on 05.03.2019 . The respondent assessee had shown receipt of share capital/ premium during the financial year 2009-10 aggregating to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantiate the source of the funds from which the alleged investments were made. With respect to the Guwahati companies - Ispat Sheet Ltd. and Novelty Traders Ltd., enquiries revealed that they were nonexistent at the given address. 22. On the basis of the detailed inquiry, the AO found that: i. None of the investor-companies which had invested amounts ranging between ₹ 90,00,000 and ₹ 95,00,000 as share capital in the Respondent Company - Assessee during the A.Y. 2009-10, could justify making investment at such a high premium of ₹ 190 for each share, when the face value of the shares was only ₹ 10; ii. Some of the investor companies were found to be nonexistent; iii. Almost none of the companies produced the bank statements to establish the source of funds for making such a huge investment in the shares, even though they were declaring a very meagre income in their returns; iv. None of the investor-companies appeared before the A.O., but merely sent a written response through dak. The AO held that the Assessee had failed to discharge the onus by cogent evidence either of the credit worthiness of the socalled investor-comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Genuineness of transaction 26. The Supreme Court also took note of its decision in Kale Khan Mohammad Harif v. CIT, (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT, (1977) 107 ITR (SC), wherein it had laid down the onus of proving the source of money found to have been received by the assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the payee, then the AO must conduct an inquiry and call for more details before invoking section 68. If the assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source of investment made, it is open to the revenue to hold that such investment is the income of the assessee, and that there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. The Supreme Court also observed that with respect to the genuineness of the transaction, it is for the assessee to prove the same by cogent and credible evidence, since the investment was claimed to have been made in the share capital of the assessee company, it was for the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory, there is prima facie evidence against the assessee, vis., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the same, the said evidence being unrebutted can be used against him by holding that it is a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee, the department cannot, however, act unreasonably ii. In CIT v. P. Mohankala, 291 ITR 278, this Court held that: A bare reading of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee ; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year ; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found in the books or (b) the explanation offered by the assessee, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, is not satisfactory. It is only then that the sum so credited may be charged to Income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The expression the assessee offers no explanation means the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed each other, whether the transaction is entered into through written documentation to protect investment, whether the investor was an angel investor, the quantum of money invested, creditworthiness of the recipient, object and purpose for which payment/investment was made, etc. The incorporation of a company, and payment by banking channel, etc. cannot in all cases tantamount to satisfactory discharge of onus. vii. Other cases where the issue of share application money received by an assessee was examined in the context of Section 68 are CIT v. Divine Leasing Financing Ltd. (2007) 158 Taxman 440, and CIT v. Value Capital Service (P.) Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 334. 31. The principles culled out by the Supreme Court are contained in para 11 of its judgment, which read as follows: 11. The principles which emerge where sums of money are credited as Share Capital/Premium are: i. The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors, and credit-worthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to make the investment in question, to the satisfaction of the AO, so as to discharge the primary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentity of the investor companies, was not discharged by the assessee. 14. The practice of conversion of un-accounted money through the cloak of Share Capital/Premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a higher onus is required to be placed on the Assessee since the information is within the personal knowledge of the Assessee. The Assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the AO, failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the Assessee. 15. On the facts of the present case, clearly the Assessee Company - Respondent failed to discharge the onus required under Section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the Assessee's income. (emphasis supplied) 33. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Revenue was allowed by the Supreme Court. 34. Though the said decision was rendered by the Supreme Court while dealing with a Civil Appeal arising from a decision of this Court dismissing the appeal under section 260A of the Act, the findings returned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question as share application money. The aforesaid background raises serious doubts about the character of M/s Shail Investments Pvt. Ltd. and M/s New Delhi Credits Pvt. Ltd., as being mere vehicles for providing accommodation entries. These two companies appear to have dubious character and, thus, the genuineness of the transactions that these two companies have undertaken with the petitioner has come under a serious cloud, giving rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of the Assessing Officer that the petitioner may have indulged in a dubious transaction with the said M/s Shail Investments Pvt. Ltd. and M/s New Delhi Credits Pvt. Ltd. to launder its undisclosed income. 32. Pertinently, the petitioner does not dispute having received monies from these two dubious companies. 33. In our view, since the petitioner does not dispute the receipt of monies from M/s Shail Investments Pvt. Ltd. and M/s New Delhi Credits Pvt. Ltd. towards alleged capital infusion, the belief formed by the Assessing Officer, that taxable income of the petitioner has escaped assessment cannot, but, be described as reasonable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servations in Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16 (2) v. Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. are relevant. 18. Before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a change in opinion, the court ought to verify whether the assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which is the basis of the alleged escapement of income that was taxable. If the assessment order is non-speaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature, it may be difficult to attribute to the assessing officer any opinion on the questions that are raised in the proposed reassessment proceedings. Every attempt to bring to tax, income that has escaped assessment, cannot be absorbed by judicial intervention on an assumed change of opinion even in cases where the order of assessment does not address, itself to a given aspect sought to be examined in the reassessment proceedings. 42. Consequently, even in the cases of Mr. Chetan Sabharwal in view of the fact that the original assessment orders are totally silent on this aspect of the matter, it cannot be said that the reason to believe constitutes a change of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice was invalid. Inasmuch as, as a result of our order, the reassessment proceedings have now to go on we do not and we ought not to express any opinion on merits. (emphasis supplied) 39. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance on Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. V. Income Tax Officer - WARD 8(4) Anr., 2011 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) to submit that in this case, the Court held that the reasons do not satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act, since they were found to be extremely scanty and vague. In Signature Hotels (supra), the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 read as follows: Information received from the office of the DIT (Inv.)-VI, New Delhi, revealed that M/s. Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. has introduced unaccounted money in its books of account during the financial year 2002-03 through accommodation entry from M/s. Swetu Stone PV for ₹ 5 lakhs. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that the taxable income to the tune of ₹ 5 lakhs has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 40. After discussing on the legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677. Firstly, we may observe that the said decision was rendered in an appeal preferred under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act by the Revenue against the decision of the ITAT. The ITAT had quashed the assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act. This Court had upheld the said decision. Even in this case, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for formulation of belief that income had escaped assessment were sketchy. The same read as follows: Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment: In this case, information has been received from the Director of Income Tax, (Investigation) New Delhi that the Assessee has received amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- as follows: Beneficiary's Name Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. Beneficiary Bank Name State Bank of Hyderabad Beneficiary Bank Branch Karol Bagh Value of entre taken 500,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no suppression on the part of the petitioner and that it could not be said that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment in relation to the assessment year 2012-13. This submission too has no merit in the light of the above discussion, and in the light of the decisions cited hereinabove in the case of RDS Project Limited (supra). Mere production before the Assessing Officer of the Account Books, or other evidence, from which material evidence could, with due diligence, have been discovered by the Assessing Officer, would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the First Proviso to Section 147. The Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 took the assessee SIPL for its word when it claimed that the transactions undertaken by it with Moral were genuine sale transactions. However, that fundamental premise is now shaken, since Moral has been found to be a completely tainted entity embroiled in very large scale dubious transactions of providing accommodation entries. If the transactions undertak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
