AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal reads as under:- "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,40,00,00/- made by the AO u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act being the bogus cash credit and Rs. 36,000/- being the cash paid as commission for obtaining accommodation entries. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing." 2. The grounds raised by the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are applicants and to produce the Principal Officers of these companies. None attended, however a reply dated 28.11.2007 was received through post containing some of the details called for. Thereafter, the AO held that it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee has failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him in accordance with the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, money received on account of share application and commission were treated as undisclosed income and added to the total income of the assessee by completing the assessment at Rs. 1,40,36,000/- u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.12.2007. 4. Against the Order of the Ld. AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), challenging the validity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Member is Party. In this behalf, he filed the copy of the order dated 08.10.2015 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd (Supra) as well as Tribunal's order dated 9.1.2015. Therefore, he requested that by following the decision in the case of Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd., (Supra) the legal issue raised by the Assessee in the present Cross Objection may be allowed and accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. 8. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO and stated that notice u/s. 148 has been issued, after applying the mind by the AO. He further stated that the Notice has been issued to the assessee on the basis of the material found against the assessee and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is enclosed as per Annexure. In view of the specific information received as above from Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, New Delhi, I have sufficient reason to believe that the assessee company M/s James Capital & Finance Private Limited has indulged in receiving accommodation entries and the total amount of payment received by the assessee company amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- is bogus and represents the undisclosed income / income from other sources in its return filed. Accordingly, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 15,00,000/- has escaped assessment as the assessee company has understated its returned income for the AY 2003- 04 by an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. SD/- (KULDEEP SHARMA) INCOME T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of above accommodation entries." The above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied his mind to the materials that he talks about particularly since he did not describe what those materials were. Once the date on which the so called accommodation entries were provided is known, it would not have been difficult for the AO, if he had in fact undertaken the exercise, to make a reference to the manner in which those very entries were provided in the accounts of the Assessee, which must have been tendered along with the return, which was filed on 14th November 2004 and was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Without....