TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed on record also proved that assessee proved identity of the investor company, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. There was thus no justification to make any addition against the assessee. No evidence have been brought on record if assessee paid any amount as commission etc. for obtaining any accommodation entry. The issues are therefore covered by order of A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd.[ 2016 (5) TMI 55 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] . The decisions cited by ld. D.R. in the written submission would not support case of the Revenue. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 4689/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-1-2019 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA. For the Respondent : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. ORDER This appeal by the Assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-III, Delhi dated 2nd May, 2018 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, challenging the reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the IT Act, addition of ₹ 18,00,000/- on account of share capital and premium u/s.68 of the IT Act and addition of ₹ 36,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure for obtaining the accom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the investor company, copy of bank statement of the investor company along with copy of balance sheet, copy of balance sheet filed with the Registrar of Companies and copy of the Company Master Data as per record of the ROC to prove the identity of the investor, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the contention of the assessee and made the addition of ₹ 18,00,000/- u/s.68 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of ₹ 36,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure incurred for obtaining accommodation entry. 4. The assessee challenged the initiation of re-assessment proceedings of the above company before the ld. CIT(A), the written submission of the assessee is reproduced in the appellate order in which the assessee explained that reopening of the assessment is bad in law and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 300. It was submitted that Assessing Officer formed a reason to be based on the statement of Shri Tarun Goyal wherein the name of the assessee company has nowhere been mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009- 10 on 04.09.2009 at an income of ₹ 5,47,858/-. The return was processed on 04.01.2011 at the returned income of ₹ 5,47,858/-. During the year the assessee company had shown total sales/gross receipts of ₹ 2,16,41,822/-. Perusal of record reveals that the assessee company was incorporated on 04.03.2004. An informative letter dated 31.03.2009 from the then Addl. DIT (Inv.), Unit-IV, New Delhi was received in the office of the then Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV, New Delhi which was received in the office of the then^ AO on transferred having information regarding beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Tarun Goyal, CA/Director of various companies registered and addressed at his office premises 13/34, WEA, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 on which a search u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted on 15.09.2008 by the Investigation Wing. Sh. Tarun Goyal in his statement recorded on oath accepted that he through its various bogus companies provided accommodation entries. This fact was also accepted on oath by the different directors of those bogus companies which provided accommodat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party from which received cheque against bogus biils. Shri Vinod Goyal has also admitted that there was no selling/supply of goods to these parties. The main contents of this letter are reproduced below: M/s Eash Strips Pvt Ltd (PAN-AABCE2905N) has obtained accommodation entry of bogus purchase through M/s Maa Durga trading Co. during the financial year 2008-09 total quantity of ₹ 5,73,558/- (approx.) has been diverted from profit by means of bogus purchase In response to notice u/s 133(6) the assessee company has also submitted the ledger account of M/s Maa Durga Trading Co. for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. In the ledger account its appear that the assessee company has made the payment of ₹ 5,73,558/- to Maa Durga Trading Company on 20.04.2008. As per bank account statement of HDFC Bank of M/s Esha Strips Pvt Ltd it is clear that the assessee has made the payment of ₹ 5,73,558/- to Maa Durga Trading Company against purchases. As discussed above entries of ₹ 18,00,000/- from M/s Tauraus Iron and Steel Co. Pvt Ltd in the shape share application money/share premium and debit entry of ₹ 5,73,558/- against bogus purchases are ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stment in assessee-company. This fact clearly shows that the Assessing Officer without verifying the contents of the information received from Investigation Wing recorded the reasons for the reopening of the assessment without applying his mind. Whatever reasons have been recorded for reopening of the assessment were in fact incorrect. ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of AP Refinery Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional CIT (supra) considered the identical issue in which one of the investor company controlled by Shri Tarun Goyal was M/s. Tauraus Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. in which the Tribunal in paragraphs 16 and 18 of the order has held as under: 16. Considering the above discussion, it is clear that the Assessing Officer merely acted on suspicion against the assessee. It is a mere case of change of opinion and the Assessing Officer has not examined any material against the assessee for reopening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer was having no specific evidence or material against the assessee for reopening of the assessment. No fresh material has been brought on record to justify reopening of the assessment, therefore, Assessing Officer has not validly assumed jurisdiction und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
