TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the bank statement of the assessee and the information received. In case the amount pertains to assessment year 2012-13, then the AO could not have made the addition in AY 2011-12 and, accordingly, if it pertains to AY 2012-13, then, to delete the addition for AY 2011-12. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.8908/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2022 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri S.C. Verma, CA For the Revenue : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of information received from DCIT, Central Circle (2), Mumbai and the AO has not applied his mind. It was explained that the assessee company has filed its return of income truly and correctly and there is no escapement of income. However, since no response was received from the concerned person in response to notice u/s 133(6), the AO made addition of ₹ 25 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act and determined the income of the assessee at ₹ 21,93,922/- 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings as well as additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived from DCIT CC-2(2), Mumbai and also assessment order had been framed on the basis of conclusion drawn by DCIT CC-2(2), Mumbai, hence, the Notice issued u/s 148 by the AO as well as the assessment order passed by AO are invalid, illegal both in the eye of law and on the facts. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the contention of the assessee that there is no link between the receipt of information regarding receipt of fund on 25.06.2011 pertaining to AY 2012-13 and reason to believe that income has escaped for AY 2011- 12, and, therefore, the Notice issued by the AO u/s 148 for AY 2011-12, approval accorded by senior authorities in this respect as well as the assessment order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on 25.06.2011 pertains to AY 2012-13 and therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 as well as the reassessment proceedings for AY 2011-12 is illegal and invalid. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the contention of the assessee that the Ld. AO erred in making addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- under sec. 68 relying on third party statement without giving the appellant the relevant details/documents and right to cross examine the third party. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the contention of the assessee that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 25,00,000/- as the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find, the AO, on the basis of information received from DCIT, Central Circle-2, Mumbai, that the assesee has received accommodation entry of ₹ 25 lakhs from Dhanus Technologies Ltd., reopened the assessment by recording the reasons. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the reasons so recorded clearly state that the amount of ₹ 25 lakhs received from Dhanus Technologies Ltd., is dated 25th June, 2011 and does not pertain to assessment year 2011-12, but, pertained to AY 2012-13 and, therefore, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
