TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of recording of reasons. As a result, we find no infirmity in the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147 of the Act and upheld by the CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the reopening of the assessment are dismissed. - Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Prashant Barate ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 05/02/2018, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 30, Mumbai, [ learned CIT(A) ], for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The present appeal has been listed for hearing before us pursuant to the order dated 28/01/2021, passed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Nakoda Metal Industries vs ITO, M.A. no. 155/Mum./2020 (in ITA no. 4958/Mum./2018, for the assessment year 2009-10), whereby, the earlier order dated 28/11/2019, passed under section 254(1) of the Act was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a firm and for the year under consideration, filed its return of income on 25/08/2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,51,770. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from DGIT (Investigation) Wing, Mumbai about having received vital information from the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra about some of the dealers indulged in the practice of providing accommodation entries in the form of issuing bogus sales/purchase bills without supplying any goods but providing accommodation entries only and the assessee being one of the beneficiaries of such bogus bills, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 08/03/2014. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee vide letter dated 15/07/2014, requested to treat the return originally filed as a return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. As per the aforesaid information, it was noticed that the assessee has availed following accommodation entries for the period under consideration:- Sr. No. Name of Hawala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee at Rs. 34,12,080, after making an addition of Rs. 29,60,308, being 12.5% of the total non-genuine purchases of Rs. 2,36,82,482. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee challenging the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, by observing as under:- 6. Ground No. 1 to 3 relate to the re-opening of the assessment. It is stated that order passed is against the rules of natural justice. Addition is made on the basis of borrowed information of Sales Tax Department. It is stated that contradictory finding are recorded which is prejudicial, vindictive and based on conjecture and surmises. In this respect, it is settled legal position that in a case where there was no assessment or re-assessment prior to reopening of assessment, even if all the material facts are disclosed in the return of income already filed, reopening can be initiated, if the Assessing Officer has 'reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The assessee in such cases cannot assail the reopening on the ground that the facts were already placed on record and that the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the facts. Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the appellant for the year under appeal. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act was done properly following the due procedures laid down by the law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s. 148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Resultantly, part of the ground relating to the reopening is 'Dismissed'. With regard to the claim of the appellant that the AO not provided the details and statements on the basis of which he treated the purchases as non-genuine leading to violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the ground, the appellant's AR has not furnished any documentary evidences whether any request was made to the AO seeking such material. In view of the same I am not in a position to sustain the ground and accordingly the ground is treated as dismissed. Accordingly, Ground No, 1 to 3 are treated as 'Dismissed'. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned DR and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the record that the Assessing Officer received the information from DG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
