TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be engaged in business of manufacturing of switchgears, energy meters, cables and wires, electrical fans, compact fluorescent lamp and related components and trading of luminaries lighting fixtures and exhaust fans. The assessee company had filed its original return of income for the A.Y. 2006-07 on 29.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.35,80,32,828/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed by the A.O. under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 26.12.2008 determining the total income of assessee company at Rs.40,11,27,346/-. Thereafter, a notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee company on 26.03.2013 and the assessee company was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessment order without appreciating: a) That two notices u/s 148 were issued in the name of appellant Company and M/s Crabtree India Limited, the amalgamating Company. b) That the notice u/s 148 issued in the name of Crabtree India Limited is in the name of a non-existent Company. 4. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in affirming the validity of assessment order without appreciating the fact that the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid, illegal, void- ab-initio, since conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 has not been satisfied on the ground that: a) The proceedings have been initiated after lapse of four years and there is not even an allegation that the appellant Company has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered together. 5. Ld. D.R. did not controvert the aforesaid submissions of Learned Counsel for the Assessee. 6. The brief facts relating to Grounds of Appeal Nos.5 and 6 are that the A.O. in the scrutiny assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 noted that a search action was carried out in the case of Shri Navneet Kumar Jain and his son Shri Vaibhav Jain on 26.04.2010 wherein it was found that they were engaged in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus sale bills through proprietorship concerns in the name of the family members/employees. It was noted that assessee company had made bogus purchases from the concerns of Shri Navneet Kumar Jain and Shri Vaibhav Jain. The A.O.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Scheme of Amalgamation placed at pages 192 to 205 of the paper book. He, thereafter, submitted that these purchases were made by erstwhile Crabtree India Limited and in respect of the purchases, assessee company had filed the copy of bank statements of Crabtree India Limited wherein the payment made for the purchases were reflected. He submitted that assessee had also placed on record the copy of the Certificate issued by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Circle to prove the purchases made by the assessee company. He submitted that the A.O. did not accept the Certificate issued by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the reason that according to A.O. it only established the existence of the bill and its entry in the off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He thereafter submitted that the genuineness of the certificates cannot be doubted without there being any evidence to the contrary on record. With respect to the observations of the A.O. that in the enquiries made under section 133(6) the selling concerns could not be located, he submitted that once the notices have been served under section 133(6), then, merely because those persons do not respond to the notice issued under section 133(6), cannot be the basis for treating the transaction to be not genuine and for this proposition he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT, Faridabad vs., GP International Ltd., [2010] 186 Taxman 229 (Punjab & Haryana). He thereafter placed on record the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purchase of goods by the assessee is not based on any cogent evidence. No enquiry has been made by the A.O. to justify his conclusion that the bills are not genuine. When the bills were available with the A.O, he could have made necessary enquiries. We, therefore, find that the disallowance of purchases being not genuine as it is an accommodation entry, is not supported by any cogent reasons and is more in the nature of surmises and conjectures. We also find force in the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that by entering into bogus purchases of Rs.40 lakhs when the turnover of assessee company is more than Rs.1000 crores, the assessee company would not gain significantly and there would not be much gain to the ass....