TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. Pr. CIT considering the assessment order dated 19.03.2015 to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, it is noted in the impugned order that assessment was reopened under section 148 of the I.T. Act on the allegation of accommodation entry taken from S.K. Jain group of cases who were searched on 14.09.2010 by Investigation Wing of the Department, some of the Assessing Officers did not examine the seized material in the form of cash book and book containing the details of cheques issued by such concern seized from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain during the course of search. The Investigation Wing, Delhi, forwarded the hard copy of appraisal report dated 12.03.2013 which was received by him on 15.03.2013, the relevant seized material was scanned and sent to CIT in soft copy. However, while completing the reassessment though the A.O. referred the appraisal report but did not look into the relevant seized material in soft copy. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the re-assessment order be not revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. The assessee objected to the same and submitted that there is no evidence against the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n accommodation entries of Rs. 55,00,000/- from the persons/parties (termed as entry operators). These entries have been investigated by the Investigation Wing and found to be given as accommodation entries from the entities operated and controlled by Sh. Surender Kumar Jain. The details of which are mentioned below : Beneficiary's Name Amount (Rs.) Entry Provider Cheque/ RTGS/ P.O.No. Dated M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited. 15,00,000/- M/s. Ad Fin Capital Services (P) Limited. 230831 UTI Bank 23.04.2008 M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited. 20,00,000/- M/s. Ad Fin Capital Services (P) Limited. 230845 Axis Bank 26.04.2008 M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited. 20,00,000/- M/s. Ad Fin Capital Services (P) Limited. 248523 Axis Bank 27.05.2008 I have very carefully considered the aforesaid piece of information and the modus operandi of the entry operator Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and its controlled entities. I find that the quantum of amount of such entries received by the assessee company M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Limited as per details mentioned above is Rs. 55,00,000/-. These accommodation entries taken by M/s. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enquiry accepted the returned income vide re-assessment order dated 19.03.2015. He has submitted that even thereafter A.O. recorded fresh reasons for reopening of the assessment dated 23.03.2016 and copy of the reasons have been supplied to assessee vide letter dated 12.05.2016 (PB-178) and on the same reasoning A.O. again reopened the assessment under sections 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act. It may noted here that the Ld. CIT-D.R. produced the assessment record, according to which, the A.O. recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment on 23.03.2016 which is approved by Ld. Pr. CIT on 30.03.2016. However, the A.O. dropped the proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act vide Order dated 05.12.2016. Copy of the reasons and Order have been placed on record by the Ld. CIT-D.R. Order of the A.O. dated 05.12.2016 dropping the proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act for the second time are reproduced as under : "05.12.2016 : Mr. Munish Gupta, A.R. of the assessee attended. Since the case for A.Y. 2009- 10 has already been assessed in Ward-24(2), based on the same reasons for reopening, the current proceedings are void ab initio. Proceedings u/s. 148 are therefore dropped. Relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proceedings to prove that assessee entered into genuine transaction. Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT should not have invoked the jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that ITAT, Delhi G-Bench in the group case of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi & Another vs. The PCIT-8, New Delhi in ITA.No.2269 & 2857/Del./2017 vide Order dated 10.12.2018 has quashed the Orders under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Copy of the Order is placed on record. 7. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the impugned order and submitted that dropping of the proceedings does not amount to order. Therefore, it cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. He has submitted that A.O. has not considered the seized material found from the premises of Shri S.K. Jain during the course of search. The Ld. D.R. also filed written submissions in which he has reiterated the same submissions which were reiterated in the group cases of M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi & Another vs. The PCIT-8, New Delhi (supra). 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the group cases of M/s. Supersonic Technologies ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the parties and perused the material available on record. ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 - M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 3. The facts of the case are that original return of Income in this case was filed on 20.10.2007 at NIL income. The notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, was issued on 25.03.2014 after recording the reasons and taking prior approval from the competent authorities. The assessee in response to the statutory notice vide letter dated 10.04.2014 submitting therein that the original return filed may please be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act and also requested to provide reasons recorded, which were duly provided to it. The assessee also filled its objections which were disposed off. The A.O. issued statutory notice which were complied by the assessee and filed details as called for. The A.O. after discussing the case with the assessee, accepted the returned income and completed the re-assessment order under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on Dated 30.06.2014. 3.1. The Ld. Pr. CIT on examining the assessment record noticed that though the assessment was reopened under section 148 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Act. The assessee-company submitted that the A.O. has considered the seized material not only at the time of re-assessment but also at the time of recording reasons for re-assessment. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the reasons recorded by the A.O. wherein there is a mention of accommodation entries provided by the group of Shri S.K. Jain who had floated hundreds of bogus companies to provide accommodation entries in lieu of cash. 3.2. The assessee-company also submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, assesseecompany was asked to furnish income tax returns, confirmations, financials and bank statements, which were duly complied with by the assessee-company. The assessee-company has proved the creditworthiness of the Investors before A.O. Independent notices were issued under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act to the Investor companies by the A.O. The facts were examined based on information provided by the assessee-company. The proceedings under section 263 would amount to the consideration of material which has already been considered by the A.O. during the assessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 143 of the I.T. Act, and if in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ils of accommodation entries provided by Shri S.K. Jain group to various beneficiary companies were tabulated for the charge of CIT-8. The A.O. has made mentioned details/table as the basis for reopening of the assessment which is clear from the reasons recorded for issue of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. From the entry No.230, the name of the assessee-company an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs have been mentioned. It would shows that A.O. did not verify or examine the seized material relating to the assessee. The Ld. Pr. CIT also noted that as there is no statutory notice under section 143(2) prescribed in the Act and only non-statutory notice is prescribed, the purpose of which is to intimate the assessee that the case has been selected for scrutiny and the notices issued on dated 11.06.2014 and 19.06.2014 clearly proves that the case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny, such show cause notices are nothing but notice under section 143(2). of the I.T. Act. It is also noted by the Ld. Pr. CIT that even though no formal notice under section 143(2) was issued by the A.O, in the letters dated 11.06.2014 and 19.06.2014 it was specifically mentioned that in the absence of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 28.03.2013 that the assessee has received and is a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by the group of Shri Surendra Kumar Jain, Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Vishesh Gupta, Shri Navneet Jain and Shri Vaibhav Jain. The accommodation entries have been provided to various assessees who were re-routing their unaccounted cash through these accommodation entries. Therefore, all the relevant details were before A.O. at the time of reopening of the assessment. PB-17 to 24 are the information called by the A.O. from all Investor Companies under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act at re-assessment stage. PB-25 is objections filed by assessee for reopening of the assessment under section 148. PB 26-27 is queries raised by the A.O. at reassessment stage along with documents of Investor companies. PB-35 is details of share applicant companies filed. PB-36 is objection decided under section 148 by the A.O. PB-37 to 139 are replies with documents filed by Investor Companies directly to the A.O. under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act. If the CD is not considered by the A.O. at the time of re-assessment order as per notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act, the re-assessment order is bad in law. Le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the Order/Inquiry made is erroneous. An Order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous." Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.) in which it was held that "once the claim was considered and examined by the A.O, Commissioner cannot set aside the Order without recording contrary finding. This will be contrary to Section 263 of the I.T. Act." The CIT did not make any investigation by examining the Investors. He has relied upon the Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi 2016-(5)-TMI- 1290-ITAT-Delhi. He has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Globus Infocom Ltd., vs. CIT-IV, Delhi (2014) 369 ITR 14 (Del.). Learned Counsel for the Assessee has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-8 vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., 2015-(10)-TMI-1765-Delhi-High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T. Act. The assessee has raised several legal issues/objections before Pr. CIT challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. Even before the Tribunal at the time of filing of the appeal, this issue has neither been raised in the grounds nor has any additional ground been raised so that Department could have got the opportunity to object or respond to such a plea after verifying the record in this regard. Therefore, request of Counsel for Assessee was rejected. It is also noted that the impugned order demonstrated that the issue was neither enquired into nor was verified by the A.O." The Ld. D.R. similarly relied upon decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Surya Financial Services Ltd., vs. PCIT vide ITA.No.2915/Del./2017, Dated 08.01.2018 reported in 2018-TIOL-74-ITAT-Del. The Ld. D.R. also relied upon decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Shankar Tradex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi, vide ITA.No.2999/Del.2017 Dated 16.04.2018 in which similar issue was decided against the assessee. The Ld. D.R. submitted that A.O. has not taken into consideration the material seized during search in the case of Shri S.K. Jain. Therefore, Explanation-2 to Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before Ld. Pr. CIT in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act that A.O. has not issued notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act at re-assessment proceedings. The Ld. Pr. CIT mentioned in the impugned order that assessee was intimated by notices dated 11.06.2014 and 19.06.2014 that in the absence of requisite details assessment would be completed under section 144 of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Pr. CIT treated the same notices as notice issued under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Pr. CIT, however, admitted that no formal notice under section 143(2) have been issued to the assessee before completion of the re-assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. CPR Capital Services Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 43 (Del.) held as under : "The Tribunal held that no notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was prepared and served upon the assessee. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that mere noting in the order sheet would not suffice and the copy of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act was not available on record. Since the Department had failed to produce the copy the notice under section 143(2) of the Act there was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e may briefly note that A.O. examined entire seized material at the time of recording reasons and reassessment stage. The assessee produced sufficient evidences at the re-assessment proceedings to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The A.O. also made direct enquiry by issuing summons under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act to the Investors who have also replied directly to the A.O. Therefore, A.O. rightly accepted the credits as genuine. In view of the above finding, there is no need to give a finding in detail on merits. In view of the above, we allow the appeal of assessee. 7. In the result, ITA.No.2269/Del./2017 of the Assessee is allowed. ITA.No.2857/Del./2017 - M/s. SPJ Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 8. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi, Dated 22.03.2017, for the A.Y. 2007-2008 under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 9. Briefly the facts of the case are that in this case similar information about entry operators and their beneficiaries of Delhi was received from the O/o. DIT, (Inv.)-II, Delhi, along with detailed report giving working of entry operators with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 1 crore. Show cause notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act was issued stating therein that assessee has received Rs. 50 lakhs each as accommodation entries from Hillridge Investments Ltd., and M/s. Vogue Leasing & Finance Private Limited. Explanation of assessee was called for because the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the A.O. has not examined the seized material and has failed to tax the amount of Rs. 1 crore as unexplained credit in the books of account of the assessee. The assessee filed reply in which it was briefly explained that the A.O. in the reasons for reopening of the assessment recorded that there is escapement of income of Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore, entire proceedings are based on non-application of mind by the A.O. The assessee requested for crossexamination to the statement of Shri S.K. Jain. The Pr. CIT noted that correct amount of accommodation entries from both these companies are Rs. 50 lakhs each instead of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Ld. Pr. CIT also noted that A.O. failed to consider the seized material found during the course of search in the case of Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, A.O. passed the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f paper book. Same reads as under : "Reasons for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. SPJ Hotels (PV Limited, PAN AAKCS7722C for the A.Y. 2007-08 - Reg. 25.03.2014 : Information about entry operators and their beneficiaries of Delhi has been received from the office of the DIT .(Inv.)-II, New Delhi vide letter F. No. DlT(Inv)- 148/2011-12/7539 dated 21,03.2012 and F. No. DIT (Inv)- II/U/s 148/ 2012-13/196 dated 12.03.2013 along with detailed report giving working of entry operators with a list of beneficiaries. After making inquiries, the Addl. Directorate of Income Tax, Unit - VI of Investigation, in his report has established large amount of tax evasion in the transactions between entry operators and the beneficiaries. It is revealed from the list that the assessee company M/s. SPJ Hotels (P) Limited (termed as beneficiary) during the previous year 2006-2007 relevant to Assessment. Year 2007- 2008 had taken accommodation entries totaling Rs.l0,00,000/- from the persons/parties (termed as entry operators). These entries have been investigated by the Investigation Wing and found to be given as accommodation entries from entities operated and controll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Vogue Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., based on information and seized material received from Investigation Wing. However, the assessee explained before A.O. that amount in question is Rs. 20 lakhs from four parties. The A.O. in the reassessment order made addition of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of unexplained credit on account of accommodation entries received from four parties and also made addition of Rs. 40,000/- on account of Commission paid to entry operators. On the basis of the same material, the Pr. CIT initiated the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act on the reasons that amount in question is not Rs. 10 lakhs received from these two companies, but, it is Rs. 50 lakhs each i.e., Rs. 1 crore. Thus, the facts mentioned in the reasons for reopening of the assessment are incorrect and nonexistent. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P & H) held as under : "Held (i) that the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment as both the grounds on which the reassessment notice was issued were not found to exist, and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer did not get jurisdiction to make a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase are that notice under section 148, dated 28.03.2014 was issued to the assessee after recording the reasons and obtaining approval of CIT-3, New Delhi. In compliance to the notice under section 148, the assessee has furnished return on 01.05.2014. The assessee stated before A.O. that the income declared in the ITR under section 148 remain the same as declared in the original return of income filed under section 139 of the I.T. Act Dated 30.10.2007. It was further stated that income of Rs. 33,79,596/- as declared in the return of income under section 139 has been accepted and assessed to tax under section 143(3) vide Order dated 27.11.2009. The A.O. after considering the material on record and summons issued under section 131(1) of the I.T. Act and notice under section 133(6) and other material on record, accepted the return of income and passed the re-assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, Dated 30.03.2015. 17. The Ld. Pr. CIT found the said re-assessment order to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is noted that assessment was reopened under section 148 on the allegation of accommodation entries taken from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. 18. The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the Order under section 263 of the IT. Act. The assessee also moved an application for admission of the following additional ground. "That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT ought not to have revised reassessment order under section 147/143(3) as the said re-assessment order was void and bad in law due to illegal assumption of jurisdiction." 18.1. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that additional ground is legal in nature and no fresh facts are to be investigated. The additional ground goes to the root of the matter and therefore, prayed that the same may be admitted for disposal of the appeal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC) and decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of VMT Spinning Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, Ludhiana and another (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P & H). 19. On the other hand, Learned D.R. objected to the admission of additional ground of appeal. 20. Considering the facts of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2.20 crores have been mentioned. Therefore, in the reasons the facts have been wrongly mentioned. All the facts available on record were considered in the reassessment proceedings, therefore, no new material has been brought on record for reopening of the assessment. All incorrect and non-existing facts have been mentioned in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The amount in question is also wrongly mentioned in the reasons. In the books of account of assessee, assessee has shown to have received share application money from two Investors in a sum of Rs. 2.20 crores and not Rs. 2.90 crores. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to various replies filed before A.O. at original assessment stage as well as in the re-assessment proceedings in which it was clearly highlighted that there is application of mind from the side of the A.O. to frame the re-assessment order. PB-300 and 301 is report of the Inspector to show that notice under section 133(6) have been served upon M/s. Vogue Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. PB-319 is the report of the Investigation Wing which clarifies that summons under section 131 and notice under section 133(6) have been issued on the Directors of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. in ITA.No.2269/Del./ 2017 hereinabove. The Learned D.R. submitted that seized material was not considered by the A.O. Summons under section 131 were not complied with. All material facts were not disclosed. A.O. took the figure of Rs. 2.90 crores in the reasons based on information received from Investigation Wing. Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT correctly invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Assessee cannot challenge validity of re-assessment proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. 22. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is well settled that the Ld. Pr. CIT while exercising power under section 263 of the I.T. Act could not revise the assessment order which was illegal, bad in law and non-est in the eye of Law. The assessee can challenge the validity of the re-assessment order referred to under section 263 of the I.T. Act being non-est and illegal. The case Laws relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, A.O. passed the original assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the matter. These facts are sufficient to hold that reopening of the assessment was bad in law, illegal and non-est, therefore, such order could not be revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note briefly that documentary evidences were filed before A.O. at original assessment stage as well as at the stage of re-assessment to prove genuine credit in the matter which have accepted by the A.O. after considering and examining the material on record and calling explanation from the Investors under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal of assessee. 24. In the result, ITA.No.2527/Del./2017 of the Assessee is allowed. ITA.No.3301/Del./2017 - M/s. Superior Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 25. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi, Dated 17.03.2017, for the A.Y. 2009-2010 under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 26. Briefly the facts of the case are that original ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced in the impugned order. The Ld. Pr. CIT noted that as against the entry in the name of assessee, an amount of Rs. 2 crores have been mentioned. However, on verification of the seized material, it was found that total amount of Rs. 1 crore as per details given in the show cause notice is there and not Rs. 2 crores. It would show that A.O. did not verify and examine the seized material relating to assessee and accepted the explanation of assessee without examining the seized paper. The Ld. Pr. CIT, therefore, found that the seized documents have not been examined and verified by the A.O. Therefore, re-assessment order was set aside and matter was restored to the A.O. for passing the Order afresh as per provisions of Law. 27. The assessee in the present appeal challenged the Order under section 263 of the I.T. Act as well as filed an application for admission of additional grounds which reads as under : 7.(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred, both on facts and in law, in holding that the legality of original assessment proceedings could not be challenged in the 263 proceedings, disregarding the various judicial pronouncements cited by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entry of Rs. 2 crores. However, assessee has received share capital/premium of Rs. 1 crore only in assessment year under appeal. No name of the person from whom assessee received Rs. 2 crores have been mentioned in the reasons. The show cause notice under section 263 have been issued for a lesser amount of Rs. 1 crore. If reasons were incorrect for reopening of the assessment, then, re-assessment proceedings would be invalid and non-est, therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT has no power to review the same under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to several replies filed before A.O. to show all documentary evidences were examined by the A.O. at re-assessment proceedings. There is no co-relation of the seized documents with the assessee. Since the A.O. recorded incorrect reasons for reopening of the assessment and that no notice under section 143(3) have been issued, therefore, reassessment order is invalid and as such, same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. A.O. made enquiry of all the documents but Ld. Pr. CIT did not make any enquiry on the documentary evidences on record. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the issue is same as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of the assessment under section 148 dated 29.03.2014. The reasons are reproduced above. In the said reasons, the A.O. has referred to the letter of DIT dated 21.03.2012, Investigation Report dated 12.03.2013. It is, therefore, recorded in the reasons for reopening of the assessment that assessee received accommodation entry from M/s. Ad Fin Capital Services P. Ltd., of Rs. 55 lakhs from the concern controlled and operated by Shri S.K. Jain. The assessee filed detailed reply before A.O. at the assessment stage along with documentary evidences and the A.O. called for reply from the Investor under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act which has been also responded by the Investor. The A.O. on the basis of evidence and material on record, accepted the returned income and thus, accepted that assessee has received genuine share application money. Assessing Officer, therefore, accepted the returned income vide impugned re-assessment order dated 19.03.2015. The A.O. thereafter again recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment on 23.03.2016. The details of the same have been placed on record by the Ld. CIT-D.R. The assessee has been supplied copy of the reasons vide letter dated 12.05....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CIT(A) on merits, is therefore, not sustainable, and accordingly requires to be vacated." 9.2. It would, therefore, prove that dropping of the proceedings under section 148 was held to be valid Order revisable under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. D.R. that the dropping of the proceedings under section 148 of the I.T. Act does not amount to Order is not tenable and accordingly, rejected. These facts clearly prove that the A.O. on the basis of the same information of receiving accommodation entry as noted in the show cause notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act, had earlier reopened the assessment in first round of proceedings as well as in the second round of proceedings on the same set of facts and ultimately, dropped the second re-assessment proceedings vide Order dated 05.12.2016. Therefore, the first impugned order under section 147 of the I.T. Act dated 19.03.2015 stood merged with the second reassessment order dated 05.12.2016 dropping the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Thus, there were no justification for the Ld. Pr. CIT to initiate the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act against the first re-assessment order....