TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is against law, equity and justice. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and /or facts in upholding validity of assessment when no addition is made in regards to reason for which assessment is reopened. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld. AO u/s.68 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 75,00,000/- The assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds u/r 35A which read as under: - The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment does not reflect that the income having escaped assessment Is more than rupees one lakh or likely to be more than rupees one lakh as laid down under the provisions of s. 149(1)(b) of the Act as reopening is made beyond fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n response, the assessee filed return of income on 26/05/2014. The original return was filed on 29/10/2007 which was processed u/s 143(1). The notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued in due course wherein the assessee was called to file requisite information / documentary evidences in support of stated transactions. 3.3 In defense, the assessee filed Income Tax Acknowledgements, Board Resolution and copies of Share Application form. In later submissions, the assessee submitted copies of Balance sheet, confirmation, counter-confirmation, bank statements, Form No.2-return of allotment etc. of investor entities. A copy of affidavit made by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain denying accommodation entries with assessee was also filed. Relying upon various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the outside, we deem it fit to appreciate the reasons recorded by Ld. AO to reopen the assessee's case, in following manner: - The assessee company has filed its Return of Income electronically on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. NIL. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the I. T. Act on 21 .03.2009. The assessee is engaged in the packaging materials. 2. This Office has received the information from the DGIT(Inv.), Unit-III(2), Mumbai vide letter dated 07.03.2014, it is informed that a search and survey was conducted in the case of Shri Pravinkumar Jain & his Group on 01.10.2013 at the various business premises of the assessee. During the course of search conducted, it is revealed that Shri Pravinkumar Jain himself is a Direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. AR do not convince us since the quantum of escapement of income has already been explicitly mentioned by Ld. AO in para-3. Not only aggregate amount but entity wise amount has been indicated. Therefore, separate recording of that fact, in our opinion, was not necessary. The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of SMC bench of this Tribunal in Sumer S.Sanghvi V/s ACIT (ITA No.1424/Ahd/2016 dated 06/02/2020) in support of the submissions. However, after going through the reasons recorded in that case, which are extracted a para-7 of the order, it is quite discernible that the quantum was nowhere mentioned in the reasons and therefore, the said decision is clearly distinguishable. That decision draw strength from the decision of Hon'ble Gujara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....validly initiated against the assessee. Ground Nos. 1 to 2 as well as additional ground stands dismissed. Adjudication on Merits 6. So far as the merit of the case are concerned, we find that the onus to demonstrate the fulfilment of primary ingredients of Sec.68 was on assessee. This onus was to prove the identity of the investor entities, their respective creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. This onus was more in the factual matrix which led to trigger reassessment proceedings against the assessee. Upon perusal of documents on record, we find that the assessee had furnished Income Tax Acknowledgements of the investor entities, Board Resolutions passed by those entities to make investment in the assessee entity, copies ....