TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and had not to get anything else. 4. That the Ld. CIT-Appeals Ghaziabad has erred in ignoring the submission that the consideration as mentioned in the transfer deed of the second floor with roof rights of the property constructed by the builder was mentioned only for the sake of ascertaining the stamp duty on prevalent circle rate with out which the execution of sale deed was not possible. 5. That the Ld. CIT-Appeals Ghaziabad has erred in totally ignoring the contents of the order of CIT-Appeals, Aligarh, Camp Ghaziabad which throw the light on the basic issue and subject matter of this appeal; in the matter of Mrs. Gurbachan Kaur, the owner of the said property for A.Y. 2009-10 on same and identical grounds and that the very fact that the said Mrs. Gurbachan Kaur, owner had submitted vide para 6(2) of the appellate order at page no. 5, that the appellant (Mrs. Gurbachan Kaur ) did not any consideration to the said registration of the deed in favour of said Mr. Parvinder Singh. The amount of 4150000/- by way of cheque and otherwise as mentioned in the information with the office of the Id. A.O. was NEVER given to the Appellant (Mrs. Gurbachan Kaur, owner and "seller" as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee for adjudication of ground No.7.2 is allowed. Regarding additional ground No.7.1, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to press application for admission of ground No.7.1, hence the application of the assessee is partly allowed. 6. Placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case PCIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., 396 ITR 5 (Del), the ld. Counsel submitted that where the information was received from Investigation Wing that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries, but, no further inquiry was undertaken by the AO, the said information could not have been said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis is not justified. Further drawing our attention to pages 76 and 77 of the assessee's paper book, he submitted that in column 8(a), the AO noted 'No' against the query whether any voluntary return had already been filed whereas the AO himself in para 1 of the assessment order noted that the assessee did file the return for AY 2009-10 on 24.02.2010 along with copy of purchase deed and documents relating to the loan and stated that return already filed may be treat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at in the first part the AO noted the details of AIR information and, thereafter, mentioned the delivery of compliance letter to the assessee. Thereafter, the AO noted that the assessee has not filed return of income for AY 2009-10 and finally without any further inquiry he proceeded to hold that he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. 10. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (supra) rendered a proposition which reads as follows:- "4. Notice under Section 147 of the Act was issued by the AO to the Assessee on 25th March, 2011. The following reasons for the re- opening were furnished to the Assessee for reopening the assessment: 11. Reasons for the belief Information has been received from the that Information has income has escaped Investigation Wing of been received from the the Income-tax assessment. Department income has escaped that M/s Pine View Construction & Traders Investigation Wing of Pvt. Ltd. is a beneficiary of accommodation the Income-tax entries received from certain established assessment. entry operators identified by the Investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, 2011 passed consequent upon the reopening of the assessment, the very first line states that "the Assessee had filed return declaring income of Rs.4,38,958 on 31/10/2004 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 04.01.2005." 6. The second glaring error in the reasons was that the total of the accommodation entries was set out as Rs.1.56 crore. In the same assessment order dated 30th December 2011 in para 2.3 it is stated as under: "2.3 It is pertinent to mention here that in the reasons recorded there was some clerical error as certain single transactions were appearing in multiple and this resulted in working of the escaped income to the extent of Rs.1,56,00,000/-. However, the same has now been considered and stands corrected for the purposes of completion of proceedings." 7. In para 3.1 of the above assessment order, the AO has set out the information received from the Investigation Wing regarding the alleged bogus accommodation entries pertaining to 16 entities which sum in the aggregate works out to Rs. 78 lakhs. 8. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, relied on the decisions in Income-Tax Officer v. Selected Dalurban....