TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/03/2015 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The assessee primafacie has challenged the validity of re-assessment in the instant case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is engaged in the business of import, export and trading of cut, polished and rough diamonds. The return of income for the A.Y.2007-08 was originally filed on 12/01/2007 declaring total income of Rs.1,44,034/-. There was a survey u/s.133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 09/07/2008. In the assessment framed pursuant to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dation entry provider and only commission entry could be subjected to tax which has already been taxed in the original assessment itself. The ld. AO duly accepted to this contention of the assessee and dropped the proposed disallowance of bogus purchases to be made in the hands of the assessee in the re-assessment. However, the ld. AO observed that assessee had taken certain unsecured loans which were also treated as bogus and commission income @2.4% was sought to be added thereon in the re-assessment proceedings. 3.1. From the above, it is very evident that the reasons for which assessment of the assessee was reopened was only to make the disallowance on account of bogus purchases. Admittedly, no disallowance was made in the re-assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at, a search and seizure action was carried out by the Investigation wing, Mumbai In the Shri. Rajendra Jain Group, Shri Sanjay Choudhary Group and Dharmichand Jain group of Mumbai on 03.10.2013, which resulted in collection of evidences and other findings, which conclusively proved that the said Shri. Rajendra Jain Group, Shri Sanjay Choudhary Group and Dharmichand Jain group of Mumbal had, through benami concerns, run and operated by them in the names of their employees, provided accommodation entries to various parties in respect of bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales. Various evidences found and seized from the premises as well as the statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of respective key persons proved the above facts. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the name of the dummy partners/ Directors/ proprietors of the entities of this group were also found, which were also seized. 4. According to the regular books of accounts and the returns of income filed by different entities of the group, the business of these entities are disclosed to be trading of rough and finished diamonds and manufacturing of diamond jewellery. However, no stock of diamond was found from any of the premises searched or surveyed. The statements of all the persons recorded during the course of search revealed that this group was engaged in giving accommodation entries and this fact has also been admitted by the employees, the dummy partners/ dummy Directors/ dummy proprietors of the entities of this group as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ghanshyam Building, Hathfalla, Mahidharpura, Surat; Name of the entry provider. Sales Amount. Moulimam Rs. 1,65,30,000/ Vitrag Rs. 71,50,000/ Total... Rs. 2,36,80,000/ 7. On verification of the office records, it is seen that the assessee has filed his return of Income for the year under consideration on 12.10.2007, disclosing a total income of Rs.1,44,034/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Since the evidential and materials facts found during the course of search and survey in the case In Shri. Shri. Rajendra Jain Group, Shri Sanjay Choudhary Group and Dharmichand Jain group prove giving of accommodation of sales entries of Rs. 2,36,80,000/-, it is prima facie apparent that the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R B Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332. The operative portion of the judgement is as under:- "20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. He has to speak through his rea....