TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 1074
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....377; 42,03,250/-, while in the Cross objection assessee has canvassed that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the IT Act. 3. In this case assessee filed return of income on 25.10.2001. the assessment was completed on 9.12.2002 and the income was revised to ₹ 39,73,739/-, as result of order giving effect to Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order dated 24.3.2003. Notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 28.3.2008. Assessing Officer noted that from verification from the case records, it has been observed that assessee had received accommodation entries of ₹ 42,03,250/-. The assessee was, was therefore asked to exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax (Appeals) in the appellate order noted that reasons recorded for reopening was as under:- "The reason recorded is as under:- 1. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3)(i) on 25.10.2001 as a total income of ₹ 39,73,740/- against the returned income of ₹ 3873870/-. 2. Certain investigations were carried out by the Directorate Income Tax (Investigation)-I, New Delhi in respect of the bogus / accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/ companies. The name of the assessee company figures as one of the beneficiaries of these alleged bogus transactions given by the Directorate after making the necessary enquiries. The name and other particulars of the above said assessee are as under:- Name of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not accept this contention and affirmed the jurisdictional aspect. However, on the merits of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that reopening issue is covered in favour of the assessee in light of this Tribunal decision in ITANo. 589/Del/2009 for A.Y. 1995-96 in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Raj Kumar Bhatia vide order dated 13.8.2009 wherein the Tribunal had elaborately considered the issue of reopening and held as under:- "9. In the light of the above position of law, we now proceed to see whether the provisions contained in proviso to section 147 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lacs in capital gains scheme account no. 50100. After that the assessee invested the same consideration in the construction of H.No. 1359, Sector-24, Faridabad. Accordingly, the amount invested by the assessee and shown as received on sale of shares represents the assessee's own money from undisclosed sources. Under these circumstances, I have therefore reason to believe that income of the assessee to the extent of ₹ 27,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the A.Y. 1995-96" 11. The aforesaid reasons have been carefully perused by us. The Assessing Officer has initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act in the light of the information received by him from DDI (Invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x (Appeals), the details about the shares sold and documents in relation there to were produced in the original assessment proceedings. Summons u/s 131 were served on M/s Ashoka Commercial Ltd. for verification and veracity of share holdings by the assessee in the said company. The company through its Secretary vide letter dated 19.12.2007 stated that the assessee hold 70,000 shares in M/s Ashoka Commercial Ltd.. On the basis of confirmation given by the company and other evidences produced by the assessee, the Assessing Officer framed original assessment. Therefore, it is a case where there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to the transactions of shares, and no such allegation....