TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2004-05, the petitioner filed a return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 16.03.2011, the Assessing Officer, who is the respondent in these proceedings, issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act which was served on the petitioner on 18.03.2011, seeking to re-open the assessment on the ground that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. A copy of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act was supplied to the petitioner along with the notice. The petitioner wrote to the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2011 that the return of income filed earlier may be treated as the return filed in response t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inted out that the name of the petitioner company did not figure in the statement. It was submitted that Mukesh Gupta has not also stated that the shareholder companies were his dummy concerns. A request was made that Mukesh Gupta may be produced for cross-examination. 3. The aforesaid objections were disposed of by the Assessing Officer by order dated 29.08.2011. In this order, the Assessing Officer stated that Mukesh Gupta gave the names of concerns operated by him for the purpose of giving accommodation entries and that it is not possible to give the names of hundreds or thousands of beneficiaries. He further observed that transactions which the assessee had with company by name Fair 'N' Square Export P. Ltd. found place in the statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment by reason of the failure of the petitioner company to furnish all material particulars relating to its assessment fully and truly. It is pointed out that the petitioner's name has not been mentioned by Mukesh Gupta in the statement given by him before the Investigation Wing and, therefore, the assessee cannot be linked to the business of Mukesh Gupta, which was that of providing accommodation entries. It was thus contended that the re-opening of the assessment was without jurisdiction. 6. The learned Standing Counsel has produced before us the original records relating to the re-opening of the assessment. He has drawn our attention to the statement recorded from Mukesh Gupta on 16.01.2004 by the Additional Director of Income Tax (IN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(iv) Rabik Exports Ltd. (v) Sehgal Fluid Line Equipment (vi) Bharti Properties Pvt. Ltd. (vii) Bolni Exxim (India) Ltd. (viii) Star Garments Pvt. Ltd. 8. The return filed by the petitioner was not scrutinized but was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. The reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment show that they were recorded on the basis of material gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department and forwarded to the Assessing Officer. This factual position is also borne out by the record produced before us. The statement of Mukesh Gupta given on 16.01.2004 before the Investigation Wing refers to the fact that he was a Director in six companies. Out of these six companies M. V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Fair 'N' Sq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ached by the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure of the petitioner to furnish full and true particulars at the time of original assessment. It may be true that the assessee received the share capital through account payee cheques. It may also be true that the receipt of share application monies was otherwise supported by the necessary documents. There may not be also any dispute about the identity of the companies which subscribed to the share capital of the assessee. However, the material that was present before the Assessing Officer, on the basis of which he recorded reasons and re-opened the assessment, throw considerable doubt on the veracity, correctness, completeness and trut....