TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ima-facie opinion was sufficient to trigger the reassessment proceedings. Not convinced with legal grounds / submissions made by Ld. AR, we dismiss the same and hold that reassessment proceedings were validly initiated against the assessee. Ground Nos. 1 to 2 as well as additional ground stands dismissed. So far as the merit of the case are concerned, we find that the onus to demonstrate the fulfilment of primary ingredients of Sec.68 was on assessee. This onus was to prove the identity of the investor entities, their respective creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. This onus was more in the factual matrix which led to trigger reassessment proceedings against the assessee. Upon perusal of documents on record, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 68 for Assessment Year [in short referred to as AY ] 2007-08 by Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, [in short referred to as CIT(A) ], Appeal No. CIT(A)-154/14-15 dated 16/08/2017, the assessee under appeal before us with following grounds: - 1. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is against law, equity and justice. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and /or facts in upholding validity of assessment when no addition is made in regards to reason for which assessment is reopened. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld. AO u/s.68 of the I.T. Act of ₹ 75,00,000/- The assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds u/r 35A which read as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to ₹ 75 Lacs from 3 entities of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. These entities were (i) Kush Hindustan Entertainment Ltd.; (ii) Olive overseas Private Limited; (iii) Yash-v-Jewels Ltd. Accordingly the case was reopened as per due process of law vide issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 27/03/2014. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 26/05/2014. The original return was filed on 29/10/2007 which was processed u/s 143(1). The notices u/s 143(2) 142(1) were issued in due course wherein the assessee was called to file requisite information / documentary evidences in support of stated transactions. 3.3 In defense, the assessee filed Income Tax Acknowledgements, Board Resolution and copies of Share Application form. In l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the legal grounds raised by the assessee and also confirmed the quantum additions primarily by relying upon the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Pavankumar M.Sanghvi V/s ITO 2017 81 Taxman.com 308). Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. Adjudication on legal submissions: 5.1 At the outside, we deem it fit to appreciate the reasons recorded by Ld. AO to reopen the assessee s case, in following manner: - The assessee company has filed its Return of Income electronically on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. NIL. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the I. T. Act on 21 .03.2009. The assessee is engaged in the packaging materials. 2. This Office has received the information from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment for the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. AR, by way of additional ground, asserted that the stated reasons does not reflect the fact that income having escaped assessment is more than rupees one lakh or likely to be more than rupees one lakh as laid down under the provisions of Sec.149(1)(b) of the Act as reopening was beyond four years and therefore, the reopening was bad in law in terms of certain judicial pronouncements. 5.2 Upon careful consideration, the plea raised by Ld. AR do not convince us since the quantum of escapement of income has already been explicitly mentioned by Ld. AO in para-3. Not only aggregate amount but entity wise amount has been indicated. Therefore, separate recording of that fact, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n income had escaped assessment. We find that Ld.AO was clinched with specific information while forming such reasons which suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more, in our opinion, was required at that stage to reopen the assessee s case and formation of a prima-facie opinion was sufficient to trigger the reassessment proceedings. 5.5 Therefore, not convinced with legal grounds / submissions made by Ld. AR, we dismiss the same and hold that reassessment proceedings were validly initiated against the assessee. Ground Nos. 1 to 2 as well as additional ground stands dismissed. Adjudication on Merits 6. So far as the merit of the case are concerned, we find that the onus to demonstrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
