TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. 2. That Assessment order is barred by time and as such illegal having been issued after prescribed period of limitation. 3. Action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of A.O. in making an Addition u/s 68 of I. T. Act 1961 of Rs. 26.81,299/-( once disclosed as income in the Profit and Loss account and again making the additioni. e. double addition) being amount received from NMCE is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of A.O. in making an Addition u/s 69C of 1. T. Act 1961 of Rs. 53,626/- being commission on speculative profit is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Action of the CIT(A) in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... making addition of Rs.26,81,299/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit, addition of Rs.53,626/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure being 2% of Rs.26,81,299/-, addition of Rs.20,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital and addition of Rs.40,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of commission for taking accommodation entry. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee's appeal are against the legality of reopening the assessment order. 6. At the outse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t taken any bogus profit as alleged by the AO. Moreover, the assessee had not transacted in penny stock as alleged by the AO. These facts go to demonstrate that the reasons were recorded in mechanical manner and approval by the Competent Authority was given without verifying the correctness of facts. It proves that the approval was granted without perusing the records. Hence, such negligent and casual approach do not conform to the law. 7. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR, Shri Om Prakash representing the Revenue, opposed these submissions and stated that merely there are some typographical errors in mentioning the assessee's company name as M/s. Rajlaxmi Commodities Pvt. Ltd., would not ipso facto vitiate the entire proceedings. The reasons re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....14490 of 2018 dated 17.01.2019 [Bombay High Court]; and [v] Kolahai Infotech Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO W.P.(C) No.10958/2017 dated 23.10.2018 [Delhi High Court]." 9. I have heard the contentions of the Ld. Authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Revenue could not rebut the contention that the AO erroneously recorded the name of third party in the reason for the re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Undisputedly, the AO in assessment order has admitted this fact and justified by stating it to be a typographical error. For the sake of clarity, para 6.5 of the assessment order is reproduced as under:- 6.5. "The assessee company whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Victory Tie-up Pvt.Ltd., neither payment was received nor was any payment made to them. The transactions were carried out online where it was not possible to know each other. Looking to the findings of the AO, who has not rebutted the explanation by placing any credible material in support of his allegation that the assessee company has obtained bogus profit through accommodation entry. In the absence of specific finding supported by evidence mere reasoning on the basis of suspicion would not support the allegation. The AO has not brought any evidence to prove the correctness of allegation that the assessee procured profit in the present case. In light of the binding precedents on this issue by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the....