TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n conformity with provision of section 148 and settled legal principles. 2. That decision of Delhi High Court in the case of A.G.R. Investment Ltd. and Rajat Export & Import India Pvt. Ltd. have been applied on mechanical basis without proper appreciation of facts. 3.(i) That even otherwise, there is no justification for any addition even on merits as Assessing Officer has made addition on mechanical basis without making reference to any evidence or material in support of allegation about accommodation entries. (ii) That this is a case of reassessment and Assessing Officer has not discharged onus so as to establish that any income has escaped assessment and addition was merely made on presumption and surmises. (iii) That genuineness of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other hand tried to justify the orders of the authorities below on the issue. She submitted that the information received from investigation wing of the department is sufficient material on the basis of which reasons to believe can be formed. There was nexus between information received and escapement of income. She placed reliance on the following decisions : AGR Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT (2011) 333 ITR 146 (Delhi) Shalimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO 136 TTJ 701 (Jaipur) Kalyanji Mavji And Co. v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal II. 102 ITR 287 (Delhi). 5. In the rejoinder the Ld. AR pointed out that the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of AGR Investment vs. ACIT (supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble Delhi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the asstt. year 2004-05. (Raghubeer Singh) Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(4) New Delhi - 110 002. Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is issued for asstt. year 2004-05. (Raghubeer Singh) Income Tax Officer, Ward 26 (4) New Delhi - 110 002." 7. Having gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties, we find that in the case of Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) almost similar are the facts, wherein validity of notice issued u/s 148 was questioned. In that case also the various proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the department that the assessee had introduced money amounting to Rs. 5 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Swetu Stone PV SBP DG 50106" The first sentence of the reasons states that information had been received from Director of Income-tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs during the financial year 200203 as per the details given in the annexure. The said annexure, reproduced above, relates to a cheque received by the petition on October 9, 2002, from Swetu Stone PV from the bank and the account number mentioned therein. The last sentence records that as per the information, the amount received was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assessee was the beneficiary. The aforesaid reasons do not satisfy the requirements of section 147 of the Act. The reasons and the information ref....