TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act on the following grounds a. The Commissioner (Appeal) failed to appreciate that the notice under section 148 was issued without any valid reason for reopening. b. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had failed to give reasons for reopening to the Appellant and proceeding with the assessment proceedings without authority. c. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that a mere mention of name from whom the Appellant had purchased goods from certain parties list by Sales Tax Department does not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....361261V AABCH5536Q 2,50,016/- 5 Revati Steel Traders 27090277561V 31,68,479/- Total 1,04,23,000/- 5. The names of these parties were appearing in the list of hawala dealers as supplied by the Sales-tax Department of Maharashtra. The hawala dealers had admitted before the Sales-tax authorities in their statement/affidavit that they were providing only accommodation bills without there being any actual purchase/sale of goods. Though the payment was received by the said parties from their customers through banking channels, however, after clearing of the cheques cash was withdrawn and handed over to the customers after deduction of nominal commission charges. The Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehalf of the assessee despite notice. The last notice has returned unserved. 9. As regards the reopening of the case, on a careful consideration, we note that in this case information was received by the Assessing Officer from DGIT Investigation (Mumbai) there are some parties who are engaged in the hawala transactions and are also involved in issuing bogus purchase bills for sale of material without delivery of goods, which information was based on information received by Revenue from Maharashtra Sales Tax Authority. Information was received that the assessee was beneficiary of hawala accommodation entries from entry providers by way of bogus purchase. The accommodation entry provider has deposed and admitted before the Maharashtra Sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer has live link with reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. On this incriminating tangible material information, assessment was reopened. At this stage there has to be prima facie belief based on some tangible and material information about escapement of income and the same is not required to be proved to the guilt. In this regard, I refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd, 291 ITR 500:- "Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to lax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has also raised some other issue relating to reasons for reopening. We find that these grounds were neither raised before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). They are also not arising out of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, the assessee's challenge in this regard is dismissed. 12. As regards merits of addition, we find that credible and cogent information was received in this case by the assessing officer that certain accommodation entry provider/bogus suppliers were being used by certain parties to obtained bogus bills. The assessee was found to have taken accommodation entry/bogus purchase bills during the concerned assessment year from different parties. Bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 14. In these circumstances, learned departmental representative has referred to Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Apex Appeal No. 240 of 2003 in the case of N K Industries v....