TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,000/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained expenditure. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer using the adverse material gathered at back and behind the appellant without providing the copy for rebut of the claim. 5. The appellant crave leave to amend, alter, add/modify any or all grounds of appeal. These action of Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XXVIII, New DeIhL, and Ld. Assessing officer being Arbitrary, unjust, illegal and invalid in law are liable to quashed and it is prayed to Your Honor that they please be quashed and/or any other relief just deem fit and proper please be directed. 2. The facts in brief are that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. 7,670/- on 25.9.2008. The return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act"). Subsequently, an information was received by Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing of the Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....othing to show that the cash is paid from coffers of the assessee. Reasons do no indicate as to who AO reached to the conclusion that the assessee received accommodation entry and escaped assessment. AO jumped on the conclusion the money is unaccounted money of the assessee without any basis. It was further submitted that AO has never alleged the failure of the assessee to disclose true and correct facts. To support his aforesaid contention, he relied the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2011) 197 Taxman 202 (SC); Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyls (I) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi); Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas () Ltd. vs. ITO 395 ITR 677 (Del.); Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2012) 20 taxmann.com 797 (Del.); Pr. CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) and CIT vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. 2010) 435 ITR 285 (Delhi). In view of above, he requested to quash the re-assessment. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and the case laws referred therein and stated that Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s. 148 after due application of mind. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. Delhi High Court [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. 6. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT Supreme Court 2017-TIQL-253- SC-IT SLP of assessee dismissed. Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. 7. Amit Polyprints (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT Gujarat High Court [2018] 94 taxmann.com 393 (Gujarat) Where reassessment proceedings were initiated on basis of information received from Investigation wing that assessee had received certain amount from shell companies working as an accommodation entry provider, reassessment could not be held unjustified. 8. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. Vs PCIT Gujarat High Court [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) Where reassessment was made on basis of information received from Principal DIT (Investigation) that assessee was beneficiary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n has been taken mechanically on the basis of information received from investigation wing, and, not on an independent application of mind and therefore on this ground, the proceedings are without jurisdiction. It is apparent from the fact that according to the AO, Investigation Wing has informed that assessee company has received accommodation entry of Rs. 10 lacs in the garb of share application money which is said to be as per inquiry made by the Directorate of Investigation (DI) on the persons said to be involved providing accommodation entries/ bogus share application. Based on inquiries made, DI is said to have provided details of persons who are beneficiaries of such accommodation entries and one such beneficiary is said to be the assessee. In this case notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued merely on the basis of information from D.I. that the assessee has received accommodation entry of Rs. 10 laks. There is no mention of any application of mind or any independent inquiry or any link between any tangible material and formation of reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is also noted that in the reasons recorded, the AO has made vagu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under:- 11. There can be no manner of doubt that in the instant there was a failure of application of mind by the AO to the facts. In fact he proceeded on two wrong premises - one regarding alleged non-filing of the return and the other regarding the extent of the so-called accommodation entries. 12. Recently, in its decision dated 26th May, 2017 in ITA NO.692/20l6 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.), this Court discussed the legal position regarding reopening of assessments where the return filed at the initial stage was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act awl not under Section 143(3) of the Act. The reasons for the reopening of the assessment in that case were more or less similar to the reasons in the present case, viz., information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries provided by a 'known' accommodation entry provider. There, on facts, the Court came to the conclusion that the reasons were, in fact, in the form of conclusions "one after the other" and that the satisfaction arrived at by the AO was a "borrowed satisfaction" and at best "a reproduction of the conclusion in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aforesaid, the proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are nonest in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the assessment is quashed and ground no. 1 is allowed. The judicial decisions relied upon by the Ld. Sr. DR, have been duly considered. In my considered view, I do not find any parity in the facts of the decisions relied upon with the peculiar facts of the case in hand. Since no other grounds were raised by the Assessee's counsel, the same are dismissed as such. Accordingly, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. 6. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on 16-01-2020. ============= Document 1 30 939 30 90 F. No.: I.T.O./Ward-18(2)/Questnr.-SCN/2015-16/ PAN: AABCN4773H. Office of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-18(2), Room No.-225, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110 002 {Telephone No.:11-23378426} Dated: 27/05/2015; 77777777777 50 90 .. The Principal Officer, M/s Nigam Computers Pvt. Ltd. 1711/57, 2nd Floor, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005 Sir/Madam, Sub.: Questionn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the department, vide letter no. DIT(INV)-II/U/s148/2012-13/194 dated 12/03/2013 during the F.Y. 2007-08 M/s Nigam Computers Pvt. Ltd. has received total accommodation entries of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the entities managed and controlled by Shri Surender Kumar Jain for providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries. The details of entry are as under: S. Entry No. Date entry Particular of Name of Cheque entity through the Bank No. whom Cheque date. Amount. taken 1. 10/01/2008 K. D. G. Proper. & AXIS Const. Put. Ltd. 074348 15/01/2008 Rs.10,00,000/- Total Rs.10,00,000/- I have perused the information received from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi. The Investigation Wing of the Department has sent comprehensive cletails comprising inter alia the beneficiary's name, value of entry Taken etc. In the aforesaid case, as per available records no return was filed by the company. Further, it is noticed that the assessee company M/s Nigam Computers Pvt. Ltd. has received accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-during the F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 from the entry oper....