9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- was filed by the assessee on 29.11.2006 against which assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.10.2008 at an income of Rs. 54,700/-. The case was reopened under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 22.03.2013 with the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi. The reasons are reproduced in the assessment order in which it was briefly stated that search and seizure action was conducted at the residence and office of Shri S.K. Jain and Shri V.K. Jain on 14.09.2010 and various incriminating documents / material was seized during the course of search. During the course of post-search investigation and perusal of the seized documents, it was revealed that Shri S.K. Jain and Shri V.K. Jain were engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries by providing cheques, P.Os, DDs in lieu of the cash to the large number of beneficial companies through various paper companies. They have floated various companies. As per the seized annexures, the assessee company has taken accommodation entry of Rs. 6 lakhs from M/s. Finage Lease and Finance India Ltd., on 03.1.2006. Therefore, on the basis of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share capital in lieu of cash received by them. The A.O. after considering the material on record found that entire transactions are paper work and assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the credit in the matter. The A.O. accordingly made the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs and completed the re-assessment proceedings. 6. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition made before the Ld. CIT(A). Various case laws were relied upon. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the material on record found that reasons recorded are based on tangible material and the material collected during the course of search which clearly prove that accommodation entries have been taken by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) relying upon various case law, confirmed the reopening of the assessment in the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) on merit also noted that material collected during the course of search clearly reveal assessee has received accommodation entry and it is not explained why face value of the share of Rs. 10/- have been taken at premium of Rs. 40/- per share. As such, no prudent person would make investment in share by premium of Rs. 40/- per share. The Ld. CIT(A) considering various deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Director of the Investor to prove its identity, creditworthiness of the and genuineness of the transaction in the matter, therefore, appeal of assessee may be dismissed on merit as well. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In this case A.O. has recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment which are based upon search and seizure action conducted by the Investigation Wing in the case of Shri S.K. Jain and Shri V.K. Jain on 14.09.2010 in which incriminating material was found concerning the assessee as well. Therefore, reopening of the assessment was made by recording proper reasons. It was found that assessee has received accommodation entry from M/s. Finage Lease and Finance India Ltd., in a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs. The ITAT, Delhi Bench while deciding the appeals of assessee in A.Ys. 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 along with other appeals vide Order Dated 09.08.2019 (supra), has reproduced the identical reasons for reopening of the assessment and noted that M/s. R.K. Khemkha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., has also received accommodation entry from one of the Investor M/s. Finage Lease Finance India Ltd., The Tribunal examining the issue in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination which could prove the genuineness of the transaction entered into by it as the onus to prove genuineness of the transaction, creditworthiness of the of the Investor and identity of the person was upon assessee, but, assessee failed to discharge the said onus. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Assessee was asked to explain whether assessee is willing to produce the Principal Officer/Director of the Investor Company before A.O. for verification of the genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Though Learned Counsel for the Assessee filed reply through email, but, did not show his willingness to produce the Principal Officer/Director of such concern before A.O. for examination in order to find-out the truth into the matter. It is merely stated that considering the quantum of amount involved, assessee is willing to opt for VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME 2020 and requested for deferment of the proceedings till such formalities are completed. Since prior to filing of this letter arguments on merit were already heard, therefore, such request is unnecessary and could not have been considered at this stage. We may also note here that vide Order Dated 03.03.2020 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
