TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber For the Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. Dr ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-37, New Delhi dated 28.06.2019 for AY 2008-09, challenging the reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and addition of ₹ 25 lakhs and ₹ 45,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 2. I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee company filed its return of income on 08.07.2008 for assessment year under appeal declaring income at ₹ 5,340/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. During the year, company was engaged in business of building and construction. The AO has received information from Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II) dated 12.03.2013 mentioning therein that a search operation was conducted in the case of Shri S.K. Jain group of cases in which the assessee has also found to have received accommodation entry from M/s Nisha Holding Limited ₹ 9 lakhs, M/s Brite Indu Resources Ltd. ₹ 9 lakhs and M/s Finage Leasing Finance Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DIT(Inv.)- II/U/s148/2012-13/194 dated 12/03/2013 during FY 2007-08 M/s Neel Builders Pvt. Ltd. has received total accommodation entries of ₹ 25,00,000/- from the entities managed and controlled by Shri Surender Kumar Jain for providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries. The details of entry are as under: S.No. Entry Date Particular of entity through whom entry taken Name of the Bank Cheque No. Cheque date Amount 1. 13/07/2007 Nisha Holding Ltd. Kotak 000147 14/07/2007 ₹ 9,00,000/- 2. 13/07/2007 Brite Indu Resources Ltd. Kotak 000271 14/07/2007 ₹ 9,00,000/- 3. 13/07/2007 Finage Lease Finance India Ltd. Kotak 000002 14/07/2007 ₹ 7,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh.Anil Kumar Jain, CA Respondent by Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement: /08/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.08.2018 of the CIT(A)-37, New Delhi relating to A. Y. 2008-09. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 11.09.2008 declaring total income of ₹ 1,77,185/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 20.07.2009. Subsequently the Assessing Officer received information from Investigation Wing of the department that a search operation was carried out in the case of Sh. Surender Kumar Jain group of cases, who are known as entry operators. During the course of search and post search enquiries it was established that the said group is involved in providing accommodation entries to various persons whose names were named in the report. The name of the assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of ₹ 5,50,000/-on account of Share Application money as cash credit u/s 68. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l](c) of the Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, alter amend, vary, modify and/or withdraw and grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer is illegal and void ab initio. Referring to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, copy of which is placed at pages 20 and 21 of the paper book he submitted that the reasons have been recorded in a mechanical manner and without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has simply mentioned that as per the information received from the Investigation Wing of the department vide letter dated 12.03.2013 that the assessee during the financial year 2007-08 has received total entries of ₹ 5,50,000/- from the entities managed and controlled by the Sh. Surender Kuma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No.4129/Del/2017 5. Moti Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No.3133/Del/2018 8. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). So far as the validity of reassessment proceedings are concerned the Ld. DR relied on the following decisions :- 1. Yoqendrakumar Gupta Vs ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/r20141 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 2. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others 236 ITR 3. Yuvrai v. Union of India Bombay High Court r20091 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) 4. ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007]210 CTR 30 (SC) 5. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HCMUM- IT 6. Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Delhi High Court [2014] 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/[2014] 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG)/[2014] 362 ITR 417 (Delhi) 7. Pranawa Leaf in (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT Bombay High court [2013] 33 taxmann.com 454 (Bomba) /[2013] 215 Taxman 109 (Bombay) (MAG.) 8. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communications (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act on merit becomes academic in nature and, therefore, the same is not being adjudicated. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.08.2019. Sd/- (R.K PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5.1 He has, therefore, submitted that issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of the Tribunal dated 21.08.2019. He has also referred to other decisions of the Tribunal to show that on identical facts reopening was held to be illegal and bad in law. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is well settled law that validity of the reassessment proceedings is to be judged with reference to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment which is reproduced above. Ld. Counsel for assessee in the case of M/s Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has produced on record the identical worded reasons recorded by the same AO Sh. Virender Singh, ITO, Ward-18(1), New Delhi for reopening of the assessment, copy of the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
