2017 (3) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and in law the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in annulling the order passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act on the grounds that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued and thereby deleting addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained entries u/s. 68 of the Act. 2. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 3. The grounds raised in the Assessee's Cross Objection read as under:- The Respondent - assessee has received notice of departmental appeal no. 2887/Del/2016 for AY 2005- 06 filed by ITO, Ward 26(3), New Delhi. The cross objections of the Res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s for hearing and decision of the Appeal of the Revenue and Cross objection of the assessee together. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs. 38,220/- on 28.10.2005. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act., 1961. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from Addl. DIT(Inv.), New Delhi that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry of Rs. 31,50,000/- The said accommodation entry is stated to have been provided by one Mr. Surendra Kumar Jain, who provided accommodation entry to various beneficiaries through a large number of shell managed by him. The said accommodation entry is stated to have been provided by Stellar Investments Ltd. amounting to Rs. 21,50,000/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned Order dated 20.3.2013 has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection in support of the Ld. CIT(A) order. 7. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds and requested that Appeal of the Revenue may be allowed. 8. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which needs to be upheld and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is stated to have been provided by Stellar Investments Ltd amounting to Rs. 21,50,000/- and Mehul Finvest Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2012 after duly recording the reasons and prior approval of Ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-17, New Delhi. Nobody attended nor any return has been filed by the assessee in response of Notice U/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 10.07.2-12 fixing the date of hearing on 23.07.2012. The same remains uncomplied with. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 22.11.2012 fixing the date of hearing on 03.12.2012. The same remains uncomplied with. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 18.02.2013 fixing the date of hearing on 25.02.2012. the same remains uncomplied with." ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore finalising the order of the reassessment." 5. In view of the assessee's contention being supported by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the impugned order u/s 147 dated 20.03.2013 is not sustainable in law. Same is annulled. 6. In view of the above, the remaining grounds of appeal are not required to be adjudicated. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 9.1 After perusing the aforesaid findings of the Ld. CIT(A), it is noticed that notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. was never issued. I further note that in the appellate proceedings the assessee has submitted that since the AO did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act,1961 which is a compulsory requirement of the statute, the impugned order u/s 147....