TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ckground. 2. Petitioner is a private limited company. For the assessment year 2010-11, the petitioner had filed the return of income on 27.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 29,740/. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and accepted without scrutiny. To reopen such assessment, impugned notice came to be issued. For such purpose, the Assessing Officer has recorded following reasons: "In this case, return of income was filed on 27.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 29,740/which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.04.2011. As per information shared by the DGIT(Investigation) Mumbai vide letter no.DGIT(Inv)/Information/PJ/201415 dated 03/07/2014 and for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany that in preceding and following assessment years, the assessee does not have profits to warrant such large amount of share application money. " A.Y. Date of ROI filed ROI (in Rs.) 2007-08 02.11.2007 NIL 2008-09 27.09.2008 64,910/- 2009-10 27.09.2008 15,600/- 2011-12 29.09.2011 4,22,200/- In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that there is failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the assessment year under consideration. The above amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs stated to have been received from above entities is merely accommodation entries and hence, income to the tune of Rs. 30 lakhs has escaped assessment fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore as held and explained by Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Incometax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), would have much wider latitude in reopening the assessment as long as he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons referred to the report of the investigation wing, in which, it was pointed out that one Praveen Kumar Jain had floated several companies through which bogus accommodation entries were being provided ostensibly through share application and share premium money invested in different companies. The petitioner company was beneficiary of investment of Rs. 30 lakhs from these five dubious companies. On the face of it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sted to provide evidences which you have in your possession which resulted into your satisfaction for reopening of assessment that assessee has received share application money of Rs. 30,00,000/which assessee failed to provide. Assessee submits that reasons which your goodself has recorded is far away from facts and material evidence on records. It seem that your goodself has without application of mind and without verifying the facts with the material evidence on records merely on borrowed satisfaction derived your satisfaction that assessee has received share application money of Rs. 30,00,000/- In absence of any evidence on records merely on the basis of hearsay information, your goodself can not derive satisfaction to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his ground, he did not meet with such ground in the affidavit in reply. His duty was simple. Either to say yes to what the petitioner has said in the petition and leave his counsel to argue the legal implications thereof or to deny what the petitioner has said by supplying necessary material. He chose to remain silent. 8. This approach on the part of the Revenue forced us to call for the original files. The learned counsel on the basis of such files pointed out that the computer generated system of the department showed that in connection with the assessee's PAN number for the period relevant to the assessment year, there has been an investment of Rs. 30 lakhs from above noted five companies, mentioned in the reasons by the Assessing Off....