TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) r.w.s. 147 submitted to be bad-in-law and on fact inasmuch as requisite conditions for re-opening were not satisfied. 2. The Id.C.IT.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing and holding the reassessment order as invalid inasmuch as the reassessment order passed was without assuming proper jurisdiction and being based on change of opinion and borrowed satisfaction. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating properly the objections to reassessment proceedings made before A.O. by submission dated 21/10/2016 along with relevant evidence including affidavit of Praveenkumar Jain retracting the confession alleged to have been made by him whereby the order got legally vitiated. 4. He has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 2,90,00,000/-from the bogus concern. 3. On the other hand assessee's contention that the assessee has stated that neither statement of Shri P.K. Jain was supplied nor any chance to cross examination was granted by the A.O. But ld. A.R. was not agreed with the contention of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 2.90 crore. 4. Against the said order, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and before him, assessee took the plea that statement of Shri P.K. Jain has not been supplied to him despite of the fact that he made the request to the ld. A.O but to no avail and ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. 5. We have gone through the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... quashed assessment proceedings under Section 147/148-Held, as rightly pointed out by ITAT, 'reasons to believe' were not in fact reasons but only conclusions, one after other-Expression 'accommodation entry' was used to describe information set out without explaining basis for arriving at such conclusion-Statement that said entry was given to Assessee on his paying "unaccounted cash" was another conclusion basis for which was not disclosed-Thus, crucial link between information made available to AO and formation of belief was absent-Court was not inclined to interfere in above circumstances in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to quash proceedings-Careful perusal of reasons revealed that AO did not merely reproduce informat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Non-disclosure of primary facts (Information from external source) - Assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 - For relevant assessment years, assessee filed its returns declaring certain taxable income -Returns were processed under section 143(1) - Subsequently, on basis of information received from DGIT (Inv.) that assessee made bogus purchases and to said extent income had escaped assessment from tax, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 seeking to reopen, assessment - Assessee's objections to reopening of assessment were set aside - Whether., since formation of belief of Assessing Officer was not based upon details available on record, rather on basis of information supplied by DGIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of tire Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted ITA No.726/Ahd/2017 Shantaben Parasmal jain vs. DCIT 2010-11 to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicat....