TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 02.12.2003 declaring loss of Rs. 535/- and later on the case was reopened u/s. 147/148 and assessment was completed on 30.11.2010 u/s. 147/144 of the Income-tax Act by making addition u/s. 69A of Rs. 21,35,625/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 on 26.03.2010 at the address 1/5179, Balbir Nagar, Gali No. 7, Shahdara, Delhi, as mentioned on the return for the assessment year 2009-10 filed on 09.12.2009. The notice returned back with the remark of postal authorities "left without address". Later on, the notice was served by affixture by the notice server in the present of Income-tax Inspector on 29.04.2010 at the above address. The appellant has filed his return of income for the year under consideration at the address, C- 107, ABC Complex, 20 Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur Delhi 110092. The Assessing Officer reopened the case on the basis of information received from investigation wing of the Income-tax Department. The Investigation wing during investigation found that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 21,25,000/- towards accommodation entries, the details of which are as under : S. no. Amount Instrument No. Date Concern from which received 1. 2,50,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions dated 28.11.2011 made before the first appellate authority. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the same hereunder : "1. That the appellant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. For the year under appeal, Income Tax Return was filed on 02.12.2003 declaring a loss of Rs. 535/- 2. That on the basis of some vague information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, the ld. A.O. issued notice u/s 148 to the appellant. However the same was never served upon the assessee at any time. 3. That the ld. A.O. completed assessment u/s 148 read with 344 on 30.11.2010 making an addition of Rs. 2135625/-. 4. Notice u/s 148 is bad in law, without jurisdiction and is void a. Non-service of notice u/s 148 1. The Id. A.O. has stated that he had issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, which is not correct as the assessee never received such notice. Even the Id. AO in his order has stated that the notice was returned back and hence not served at all. 2. The notice must have been issued and served. The appellant filed his return from the address - C- 107, ABC Complex, 20 Veer Savarkar Block, shakarpur, Delhi 110....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant on 15.11.2010 as per the assessment order, which is quite beyond the statutory time limit prescribed u/s 149. U/s 149(1)(b) a notice u/s 148 cannot be issued after the issue of 6 years from the end of the AY. 2. As the issuance of the s. 148 notice and the communication and furnishing of reasons go hand in hand, the reasons have to be supplied to the assessee before the expiry of period of 6 years. If this is not done, the validity of the s. 148 notice cannot be upheld. In any proceeding, whether civil or criminal, a summons issued without a copy of the plaint or complaint has to be construed as if no valid service of notice has been effected upon the defendant or respondents. 3. The ITAT Delhi bench in Sh. Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO [2011-ITRV-ITAT-DEL- 024) ITA No. 4806/Del/10) pronounced on 14th January 2011 discussing Haryana Acrylic case has held that despite service of s. 148 Notice in time, non-supply of 'Reasons For Reopening' within time renders the reopening void. A notice u/s 148 without the communication of the reasons therefore is meaningless inasmuch as the AO is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time. Where the notice has been i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant for AY 2008-09 was being heard by the same Id. AO, wherein all submissions were duly made from time to time. Whenever the AR went to submit the documents for the AY in question, the Id. AO was casual and said that he would hear the same later. d. Further please note that order for AY 2008-09 was passed u/s 143(3) with NIL demand on 30.12.2010 (copy of order enclosed), whereas order for AY 2003-04 (order under appeal) was passed on 30.11.2010, without providing any opportunity. Also he did not hand over the assessment order to the appellant, like he did for AY 2008-09 and the appellant had to collect it on 12.01.2010 after stating that it did not receive the order. e. The ld AO never ever whispered about the assessment u/s 144 for AY 2003-04 though appellant was present before him several times for assessment for AY 2008- 09 for the same assessee and passed the order u/s 144 much before the case was time bar. f. As, the conduct of the Id. AO raises doubts beyond question in not providing ample opportunity in the instant case, it is humbly requested that documents now submitted be allowed as additional evidence u/r 46A. g. The detail of the payments received by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unaccounted cash. m. The Id. AO failed to note that all the payments were received through a/c payee crossed cheques through proper banking channels and are duly accounted for in the books, records and documents of the assessee, which is evident from the records. n. Sir, when purchased investments are sold and the payments realized for the same, how can there be any accommodation entry. o. When the purchase are genuine, how its sale can be held in doubt, when all documents prove the same. The basic requirement of s. 68 as held in CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. [201MTRV-HC-DEL-031] ITA No. 2093 of 2010 with ITA No. 2094 of 2010 were proved by the assessee: i. Identity: PAN, Ration Card, ITR, Ration card, etc. ii. Genuineness: The money is received by cheque and is transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels, the genuineness of transaction would be proved. Copies of sale bills, confirmations, affidavit, etc. are all submitted. iii. Creditworthiness: The purchasers of investments had sufficient balance in their accounts to enable them to purchase the investments as the payments for purchase were made by proper banking channel. p. The Ld. A.O. did not bring a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot have unaccounted money of its own. ii. That the assessment u/s 147 is bad in law as the appellant never received any notice u/s 148. iii. That the Id. AO wrongly made addition u/s 69A, though all monies received were duly accounted in the books of accounts of the appellant. iv. That Rs. 2125000/- was received for sale of investments and is supported by sale bills, copy of a/c duly confirmed, confirmation for the purchaser, affidavit from the purchasers. v. All persons from whom payment was received against sale of investments are established. vi. PAN proof of subscribers, Copy of ITRs acknowledgement / Intimation u/s 143(1) of the subscriber, Confirmation of share application received from subscribers, affidavits of the subscribers are all furnished. vii. All the payments were received by the appellant by account payee cheque through proper banking channel. viii. The Ld. A.O. did not bring any material to prove that the payments made by the purchasers actually emanated from the coffers of the appellant-company so as to enable it to be treated as undisclosed income of the appellantcompany. ix. The Ld. A.O. did not adhere to the established law in judicial decision of t....