TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Orders both dated 7.10.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2006-07 2009-10 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 86/Del/2015 (AY 2006-07). 2. The grounds raised in ITA No. 86/Del/2015 (AY 2006-07) read as under:- 1. The assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is without authority of law and is void. 2. That the ld. Assessing Officer has no valid material to assume jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequentially reasons so framed is null, void and bad in law. In the absence of valid material available on record for formation of reason to believe that ther has been an escapement of income by the ld. Assessing Officer the reopening is bad in law. 3. That there was no reason to believe as contemplated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and hence the assessment as framed by the ld. Assessing Officer is not valid in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion sustained of ₹ 50,000 as estimated commission is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. 6. The share applicant being identifiable person duly assessed to income tax, genuine hence the addition of ₹ 20,00,000 / - being share application money, under Section 68 of IT Act and addition sustained of ₹ 50,000 as estimated commission is arbitrary and bad in law. 7. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. 8. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2006 declaring NIL income. Subsequently, the AO received information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.) of the Income Tax Department that M/s PT Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was a beneficiary of accommodation entries during the period of FY 2005- 06 relevant to the AY 2006-07. The entries were received from established entry operators identified by the Investigation Wing on the basis of search / survey conducted on Sh. SK Jain, CA. The case was reopened u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and notice was issued to the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er satisfaction was recorded before issue of notice u/s. 148; no independent conclusion that there was escapement of income. It was further stated that the case was reopened only on the basis of Investigation Wing information which suffers with serious debility and lacks definiteness, without describing the basic aspects of alleged transaction and in the absence of the same, whole action of the AO gets vitiated. To support her contention she submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT decision dated 09.1.2015 in the case of G G Pharma India Limited vs. ITO passed in ITA No. 3149/Del/2013 (AY 2003-04) in which the Judicial Member is the Author. She further stated that the above decision of the ITAT dated 9.1.2015 has been upheld by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in its Decision dated 08.10.2015 in ITA No. 545/2015 in the case of Pr. CIT-4 vs. G G Pharma India Ltd. In view of the above, she requested that by following the aforesaid precedents the reassessment proceedings of the AO may be quashed by accepting the Appeal filed by the Assessee. 8. On the contrary, Ld.DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived a sum of ₹ 27,50,OOO/- as accommodation entries by way of share capital share premium from the following S.K. Jain Group companies:- S.No. Date Information/Entry Provider Amount 1. 20.02.2006 M/s Vogue Leasing Finance Pvt. Ltd. 15,00,000/- 2. 20.03.2006 M/s S.R. Cable P. Ltd. 12,50,000/- TOTAL AMOUNT 27,50,000/- These entries are but on accommodation entries in the grab of share capital / share application money /loan /share premium etc. Perusal/examination of report / documents /records show that the entire transactions are lack ingredients of genuineness of transactions. identity of directors of company and creditworthiness within meaning of provisions of Section 68 of the Act. It is therefore, held that the amount introduced as share capital! share application money/share premium is unaccounted money of assessee company introduced in its account books through conduits after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, I am of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. My view is supported by the following judgment/decision:- Pr. CIT vs. G G Pharma India Ltd. in ITA No. 545/2015 dated 8.10.2015 of the Delhi High Court wherein the Hon ble Court has adjudicated the issue as under:- 12. In the present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10th February 2003, from four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO stated: I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of above accommodation entries. The above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
