AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its return of income for assessment year 2012-13 declaring business loss of Rs..6,09,269/- on 27.07.2012. Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information from DGIT(Inv), Mumbai in respect of beneficiaries of accommodation entries of bogus unsecured loan obtained from the concerns operated by one Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Based on the information, the assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 duly served on the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the relevant information as called for before the Assessing Officer. 3. During the course of assessment, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) failed to note that the learned Assessing Officer merely relied on the information received from DGIT (Investigations), Mumbai to reopen the assessment and neither the assessment order nor the reasons communicated indicate that the Assessing officer had applied his mind to the issue and therefore the entire reassessment proceedings are invalid, without jurisdiction, has no legs to stand and hence must be quashed. II. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,25,00,000/u/s. 68 of the Income tax Act 1961 as accommodation entry. III. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) failed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances of the case, The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in an addition of Rs. 6,68,988/on account of interest paid on borrowed fund / Short Term Loans considered now as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 taken from loaner i.e. Atharv Business pvt. Ltd, Duke Business Pvt. Ltd and Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd based on information received from investigation. VII. The appellant craves to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of appeal." 7. At the time of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that reasons are based on information and findings of the Investigation Wing. The A.O. did not apply his mind to the same. The A.O. merely concluded without verifyi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material available on record. It is well settled Law that validity of the reopening of the assessment shall have to be determined with reference to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The reasons contained in the report of enquiries made by DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, about accommodation entries given by entry operators. The A.O. reproduced the same facts in the reasons and straightaway concluded that the findings of the report of Investigation Wing shows the creditworthiness of the lender has not been established, therefore, these transactions seem to be non-genuine. The A.O. has not gone through the details of these information and has not even applied his mind and merely concluded that the transactions seems not to be genuine.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observations and information received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, which is not brought on record. Since, there is a total lack of mind while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment; therefore, assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is bad in law. The A.O. was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. We, therefore, hold that reopening of the assessment in the matter is bad in law, as such, same cannot be sustained in law. 12. On merits, Ld. AR submitted that assessee has taken unsecure loans from the parties mentioned above and repaid the same either within the assessment year or in subsequent assessment year and he brought to our notice the bank stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oks of accounts and considered the same as accommodation entry without considering the receipt of payment through bank and settlement of the loan by the assessee through bank. Just because these companies are controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, all the transactions cannot be termed as accommodation entry unless it is proved. But, in the given case, assessee has taken unsecured loan through bank and repaid the same within the same year or subsequent year. By taking loan and repaying the same through bank, what is the benefit assessee would have got, the tax authorities failed to appreciate that the salient features of accommodation entries are, they remain in the books of account and will be carried forward to several years. In this case,....