TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the proceedings under Section, read with Section, ignoring the fact that the notice issued under Section of the Act is bad in the eye of the law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reason recorded for reopening of the assessment are bad in law and as such the reopening of the assessment is illegal and liable to be quashed so. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the re-assessment order passed by the AO under section is bad in the eyes of law as the same has been passed without service of notice uls of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order under section /144 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Inv.) Unit-IV, New Delhi that the assessee is also a beneficiary of taking accommodation entry of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the garb of share application money/share capital/share premium from M/s Taurus Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd., an entity of Shrl Tarun Goyal, an entry provider as unveiled by the Investigation Wing of the Department. Consequently, notice u/s was issued by AO on 26.03.2012 after recording the reasons u/s of the Act. However, no return of income was filed by assessee in response to the said notice. Therefore, notices u/s 142(1) dated 17.09.2012 & 11.10.2012 were issued and served upon the assessee which remained un-complied with. A final show cause notice/questionnaire u/s 142(1) dated 04.02.2013 was issued to the assessee by speed post and in response to which, AR of assessee attended the assessment proceedings. Consequently, details were filed by assessee raising many objections in connection with validity of issuance and service of notices and also the reassessment proceedings. However, AO considered the submissions of assessee along with details filed and completed the assessment by making the various additions. 3. Aggrieved with the same, assessee filed the Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pite of the same, none appeared on behalf of the Revenue nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the Revenue, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua Revenue, after hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the records. 7. I have heard Ld. Counsel of the assessee and perused the records. I find that the AO has recorded the reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment as under, the same is attached with the Paper Book filed by the assessee at page no. 17 & 18. M/s Hasanpur Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. AY 2005-06 A search u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted at the office premises of Sh. Tarun Goyal, CA. The Addl. DIT(Inv.) Unit-IV after conducting the detailed enquiries and analyzing the bank account and the various documents seized from the premises has reported to the CIT, Delhi IV vide its letter No. Addl. DIT (Inv.)/Unit-IV/Beneficiaries /2008-09/392 dated 31.3.2009. The report is annexed as Annexure B. The main gist report are as under:- 1. Sh. Tarun Goyal has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) may kindly be accorded for issue u/s. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 05-06." 16.1 I find considerable cogency in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar and identical to that of case of Shri Govind Kripa Builders and Promoters vs. ITO, decided by the 'C' Bench, ITAT, New Delhi in ITA No. 304/Del/2013 (AY 2008-09) vide order dated 19.12.2014 (in which one of the Judicial Member was the Party), wherein the Hotel Signatures Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) decision of the Delhi High Court was followed. Against the order dated 19.12.2014 of the Tribunal, the Department went in Appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in ITA No. 486/2015 in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sh. Govind Kripa Builders Pvt. Ltd. and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 04.8.2015 has observed as under:- "3. It is seen that the ITAT has in the impugned order dated 19th December, 2014 passed in ITA No. 304/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 relied upon the judgment of this Court in Signature Hotels P. Ltd., vs. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) and come to the conclusion that the AO did not apply his own mind to the information a....