TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an order without providing the appellant sufficient opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 2 : Re-opening assessment u/s. 147/148 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the learned AO of re-opening the assessment without substantiating valid "reasons to believe" that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The reasons cannot be non-existent and must be genuine and not a pretence. The reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the reasons to believe are non-existent. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that information provided by the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai cannot construe as 'tangible material' to justify the re-opening, since the concerned party has retracted the statement as the same being given under coercion/undue influence. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming learned AO's reopening the assessment purely on presumption basis and to make an enquiry or verification. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the cogent evidence submitted by the appellant in the course of assessment proceedings. Ground No. 3 : Addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he hearing of the appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of export and import of diamonds and precious and semi precious stones . A Search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the 1961 Act was carried out by DGIT(Inv.),Mumbai on 03.10.2013 in Shri Rajendra Jain group cases . On the basis of statement recorded of Shri Rajendra Jain and various other persons and also after making detailed enquiry by the investigation wing , it emerged that Shri. Rajendra Jain group was indulging in providing accommodation entries like bogus purchases, sales, unsecured loans , share capital etc. . The investigation wing passed on that information to the AO. The assessee was stated to be one of the beneficiary of having obtained accommodation entries of Rs. 1,57,77,971/- from M/s Sun Diam and M/s Moulimani Impex Pvt. , concerns of Shri Rajendra Jain group . based on such incriminating material, the AO reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the 1961 Act , wherein notices u/s 148 dated 27.03.2014 were issued by the AO to the assessee after recording reasons for reopening of the concluded assessment. The assessee did not object to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erns of all the three nature i.e. proprietorship firm, partnership firm as well as companies in the name of various persons including our employees. But for all practical purposes, myself and shri Surendra Jain are handling the entire business network on profit sharing basis. The name wise detail of all business concern of ours is as follows:- Proprietorship Firm Name of Proprietor a AVI Exports Rajendra S Jain (myself) b Kalash enterprises , Manish Jain c Aadi impex Anoop Jain d Arihant Exports Sachin pareek e Vitrag Jewels Mudit Karnawat (Ex-employee) f Super Jewels Ashok Jain (Ex-employee) Partnership Firm name of Partners A Sun Diam Rajendra S Jain(myself) & Manish Jain Companies Name of Director a Kriya Impex Pvt. Ltd. Rajendra S jain (myself) & Manish Jain b Sparsh exports pvt. Ltd. Rajendra S jain (myself) & Surendra Jain c Karnavat impex pvt. Ltd. Sachin pareek and Manish Jain d Mouliraani Pvt. Ltd Rajendra S jain (myself) & Sachin Pareek Q.14 During the survey action undertaken at various office premises of yours; not a single piece of diamond has been found by respective survey te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctorial diagram, which itself will be self explanatory. (Shri Rajendra S Jain has been given time of one hour to prepare the said details) I am submitting the same as under : Thus, the AO made additions to the of Rs. 1,57,77,970/- towards alleged bogus purchases from these two concerns namely M/s Sun Diam and M/s Moulimani Impex Pvt made by the assessee , vide assessment order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 23-03-2015 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT-A but there was no appearance of the assessee before learned CIT-A despite several notices issued by learned CIT-A to the assessee which led to dismissal of the appeal , the details of notices issued by learned CIT(A) are detailed hereunder :- Date of issue of notice/ date of adjournment Date fixed for hearing/ adjourned date Remarks 14.10.2016 18.11.2016 No compliance 21.11.2016 06.12.2016 No compliance 07.12.2016 26.12.2016 No compliance j 30.12.2016 25.01.2017 No compliance Thus, the learned CIT-A dismissed the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tently the said address was not notified to learned CIT-A which led to dismissal of appeal ex-parte by learned CIT(A). It was prayed that the appeal be decided by tribunal on merits. It was further submitted that the assessee is challenging both the reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue u/s 147 as well issues arising in this appeal on merits . She relied upon certain judgement of the tribunal to contend that some reasonable profits be estimated in this case but at the same time she fairly agreed that learned CIT-A decided the appeal ex-parte in the absence of assessee as the new address was not notified by the assessee to the Ld. CIT-A and hence notices were not received by the assessee which was the reason for non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT-A leading to dismissal of appeal ex-parte by learned CIT(A). The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee has only submitted copy of ledger , bank statement and sources for making payment by cheque to these alleged hawala operators which is not sufficient to prove genuineness of the purchases . It was submitted that neither stock reconciliation statements nor quantit....