9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is one of the leading manufacturers of high barrier polymer films exporting to 80 countries worldwide. The assessee caters to clients across industries as the polyester films / slash metallized paper are suitable for various applications such as packaging, adhesive tapes, labeling, and decorations among others. Additionally, the products of the assessee also finds use in other industries like textiles, electrical and medical equipment, security industry etc. The raw material for production (mainly polyester films and chips) is procured by the assessee from various indigenous reputed suppliers such as Reliance, IOCL, MCPI, HPCL and also imported from international vendors such as Marubeni Plex, Indorama, Polychem Korea, Oriental Petrochemical etc. All the raw materials procured are evidenced and supported by relevant documents viz. invoice, lorry receipt, road permits as prescribed from time to time by the Central Sales Tax / VAT / GST regulations. Similarly, the import purchases are supported by bill of import, bill of entry, shipping bill etc. All the materials are brought to the respective factories and taken to store ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 before the Investigation Wing in response to the summons under Section 131(1A) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that scrutiny assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2013-14 against the original return filed on 30-11-2013 was completed by the Learned AO under section 143(3) of the Act on 24- 04-2015, accepting the Nil returned income. This scrutiny assessment was framed after looking into account taking into account the replies filed by the assessee explaining the transactions with M/s Perfect Polychem Private Limited before the investigation wing in response to summons issued under section 131(1A) of the Act. Further, the same details were elaborated in detail before the Learned AO in the scrutiny assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the assessee. Absolutely no adverse inference was drawn by the Learned AO in the said scrutiny assessment proceedings qua the transactions of the assessee with M/s Perfect Polychem Private Limited eventhough the said proceedings were framed after the response of the assessee before the investigation wing. It is pertinent to note that assessee had sold its goods to M/s Perfect Polychem Private Limited. Later a notice dated 2-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills only with five parties and assessee's name did not figure in the said five parties list. Further, no questions whatsoever were even posed by the investigation wing on Mr. Vijay Goyal with regard to transactions carried out by M/s Perfect Polychem Private Limited with the assessee. Hence, there was no occasion at all for Mr. Vijay Goyal to even mention the name of the assessee, much less anything adverse qua the assessee, in the said statement. Hence, it could be safely concluded that statement of Vijay Goyal was never against the assessee and not at all connected with the assessee in any manner whatsoever. But the Learned AO in the reasons without any basis and without any material cogently available with him, drew conclusion that since Mr. Vijay Goyal had stated that his company M/s Perfect Polychem Private Limited was engaged in providing accommodation entries in respect of five parties which are listed in the reasons itself, in general, the said company should have indulged only in the business of exchange of bills and accordingly all the transactions of M/s Perfect Polychem Private Limited should be considered only as accommodation entries. This can at best be construed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 131(1A) of the Act before the investigation wing in 2013; second at the time of scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14 framed for the original return and third during the response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act in the year 2017. After all these evidences, the Learned AO proceeds to reopen the case of the assessee in March 2018. 8. We also find from the last page of Department"s Paper Book filed before us which contains the letter dated 27-12-2018 addressed by the Learned AO to ADIT (Investigation), Unit 4(1), New Delhi asking the following details :- a) Copy of the Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) mentioned in the investigation report which was forwarded to the Learned AO, which actually triggered the enquiries with the assessee. b) Copy of statement of Shri Vijay Goyal, Director of M/s Perfect Polychem Pvt Ltd. Infact due to the urgency in time barring completion of re-assessment proceedings, the Learned AO had even requested the ADIT (Inv.) Unit 4(1), New Delhi to kindly hand over the aforesaid documents in person by hand to the Inspector Shri Ajeet Mishra. This action itself very clearly goes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad merely stated "approved" in the proforma while granting approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This approval was held by the Hon'ble Delhi and Madhya Pradesh High court to be a mechanical approval. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this regard are reproduced herein:- "11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT (A), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression 'approved' says nothing. It is not as if the CIT (A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the findings by the ITAT cannot be disturbed. 12. The substantial questions of law framed are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed." 10.1. Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
