TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., information was received from the Investigation Wing that during the course of search and survey action in the case of Jain brothers, namely, Virendra Jain and Surendra Kumar Jain, it was found that they were engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries by providing RTGS/cheques/PO/DD in lieu of cash to a large number of beneficiary companies floated and controlled by them. Information was received that the assessee M/s. Brij Resources Pvt. Ltd., had received accommodation entry in the form of sale of investment of Rs. 10 lakh during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 from M/s. Shalini Holdings Pvt. Ltd., a company controlled and managed by S.K. Jain group of companies. The AO, therefore, after recording the reasons, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was received from the above parties, the AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the sale transaction of Rs. 10 lakh should not be treated as non-genuine and taxed within the provisions of the Act. Since the assessee could not explain to the satisfaction of the AO regarding the above transaction, the AO, relying on various decisions, made addition of Rs. 10 lakh to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. Similarly, the AO also made addition of Rs. 20,000/- being commission @ 2% on Rs. 10 lakh for arranging the accommodation entry. 5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee cannot be held responsible for their non-appearance and the AO was at liberty to take necessary recourses by issuing summons u/s. 131 or issuing commissions, etc. as per law. He submitted that the amount has been received by cheque and the investments were made in the preceding assessment year which was sold during the year and the amount has been received by cheque and, therefore, provisions of section 68 cannot be applicable for realisation of investment. 9. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has made only verbal arguments and there is no mention of sale of investment. Therefore, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. So far as the va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esponse to the said notice, filed the return of income and sought for the reasons for reopening which was provided to the assessee. After disposing of the objections raised by the assessee by passing a speaking order, the AO completed the assessment making an addition of Rs. 10 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act and another Rs. 20,000/- being commission @ 2% for arranging such accommodation entry. I find, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO both on merit as well as on validity of reassessment proceedings. 12. So far as the validity of reassessment proceedings are concerned, I find, the ld. CIT(A) has, after detailed discussions, dismissed each of the aspect raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. In ....