AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case as could be culled out from the impugned orders are that the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd company and they have filed their return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring the income at Rs. Nil/-. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, information was received by AO from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee is beneficiary of taking accommodation entries of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- in the garb of share capital/premium from entry providers namely Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal Group in the names of following entities: - S. No. Name and address of the beneficiary ( As per ITO) Amount Date of entry Entry provider by PAN No. of beneficiary 1. Yogi Properties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee vide letter dated 08.11.2017 which were dealt with by AO by passing the speaking order dated 10.11.2017. During the raising of objections, assessee contended that the notice u/s 148 was not issued and dispatched before 31.03.2017. However, AO rejected the objection and provided the proof of service of said notice as per the annexures to the order disposing objections. Further, during the assessment proceedings, AO examined the genuineness of share application money received by him from various share applicants and found that despite of giving multiple opportunities, assessee failed to comply the notices and show cause letters and in the case of two persons namely, M/s. Mayank Medilab and Mr. Juneja Nagpal, whatever details were filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lained under the said section and accordingly the additions were made. The unexplained commission charges @ 3% on the total additions of Rs. 1,12,000/- which amounted to Rs. 3,36,000/- was also added by AO to the income of the assessee. Finally, the total taxable income of assessee was determined to Rs. 1,15,36,000/- against the Nil income declared by assessee. 4. Assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A) on several grounds stating that the proceedings under section 147/143(3) of the Act are without jurisdiction illegal and unsustainable as no notice under section 148 was issued on or before 31/3/2017 on which date the limitation for issuance of such notice stood expired; that there was no application of mind or independen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of limitation, apart from merits of the case. 6. Insofar as ground No. 1 relating to the limitation aspect is concerned notice under section 148 of the Act is dated 29/3/2017 and the limitation for its issuance under section 151 of the Act expires by 31/3/2017. According to the Revenue such notice was dispatched on 31/3/2017 itself before office hours and it was sent by speed post with the receipt No. ED481673181IN. Even according to the learned Assessing Officer vide letter dated 4/12/2017 that the notice was dispatched from the office on 31/3/2017 and was booked for speed post on 1/4/2017. Assessee, however, made enquiries with the postal department and came to know from the postal department by letter dated 5/12/2017 that ED48167318....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....181IN not before 1/4/2017, even going by the version of the learned Assessing Officer for the time being. Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kanubhai M Patel vs. Hiren Bhatt 334 ITR 25 (Guj) and submitted that for the purpose of reckoning the limitation in respect of the reassessment notice, mere signing of notice is not sufficient, but the date of issue would be the date on which the notice was handed over for service to the proper officer. Inasmuch as there is no trustworthy evidence to show that the notice was in fact dispatched on 31/3/2017 itself, he pleaded that such notice could not be taken to have been issued well within the time and the proceedings are barred by limitation. 9....