TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Virender Jain and during such survey operations u/s 132 and 133A of the Act various documents and information were unearthed which led to belief that Shri Surender Jain and Shri Virender Jain were in the business of providing accommodation entries. The information culled out from the relevant seized documents led the AO to believe that the assessee had taken accommodation entry from M/s Sunny Cast & Forge Ltd. amounting to Rs. 4,90,000/- through cheque No. 066964 on 17.10.2006. Since the assessment for the relevant assessment year had been completed u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein the matter relating to the share capital share premium share application money etc. had not been verified, the AO proceeded to reopen the case of the assessee u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the AO completed the reassessment u/s 147 /143(3) of the Act at the returned income. 2.1 Thereafter, the Ld. PR.CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 23.1.2017 wherein the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the reassessment order should not be set aside as the AO had failed to examine the seized material and had also failed to tax the amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- as unexplained credit since the amount had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by M/s. Sunny Cast & Forge Ltd. (whose name was appearing in the seized documents). It was also submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO has asked the assessee regarding seized material which was duly explained and thereafter no addition was made by the AO. The Ld. AR submitted that the observation of the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO had not confronted the assessee with the seized material and had not examined the seized material was in fact incorrect. The Ld. AR drew our attention to an affidavit of the assessee which was filed before the Tribunal on 6.9.2018 wherein the Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the assessee has deposed that oral inquiries and submissions pertaining to impugned amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- had been made at the time of the reassessment proceedings. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to copy of the order sheet entry dated 9.3.2015 wherein it has been mentioned that notice u/s 133(6) was issued and order sheet entry dated 26.3.2015 wherein it has been mentioned that reply in response to notice u/s 133(6) was received. It was submitted that M/s. Newage Concepts India Pvt. Ltd. had responded to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f cases, the AO had not examined the seized material (in the form of account books or books containing the details of cheques issued by such concerns). The Ld. CIT (DR) further submitted that while dismissing the assessees' appeals in these cases, the Tribunal had noted that the appraisal report along with the scanned copies of seized material sent by the Investigation Wing to the AO had not been looked into by the AO nor had been examined by him during the course of reassessment proceedings and, therefore, the action u/s 263 of the Act was justified. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. We find that Ld. Pr. CIT, in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, from the examination of records before him, has noted that though the assessment was reopened under section 148 of the Act on the allegation of accommodation entry taken from Shri S.K. Jain group of cases, which were subjected to search on 14/9/2010 by the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer had not examined the seized material in the form of cash book and books containing the details of cheques issued by such concerns seized from the premises of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents. The order sheet entries, relied upon by the assessee, also fail to lead us to reach a contrary conclusion. The fact of the matter remains that the assessee's name figured in the list of beneficiaries, as culled out from the seized documents. It is also undisputed that the cheque number/amount mentioned in the seized documents was found duly credited in the books of accounts of the assessee. However, the re-assessment order, which has since been revised by the impugned order, miserably fails in bringing to light as to whether or not these aspects were examined by the AO. Thus, evidently, the AO has failed to make the enquiry on the issue for which the assessee's case was reopened. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that Assessing Officer did not examine the relevant seized material despite the fact that entries in the seized material showed that assessee was also one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries given by the concerns of S.K. Jain group. The Assessing Officer was mainly trying to verify the existence of the parties, rather than making enquiries regarding the genuineness of the transactions and as to whether cheque....