2024 (8) TMI 1098

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Govindram Agrawal (also known as Sanjay Tibrewal), the case of assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act and after recording reasons for reopening the assessment. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO issued notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 03-09-2021, 24-11-2021, 08-12-2021 and 14-12-2021 asking the assessee to provide required details. The assessee also replied to all these notices. 2.1. The National Faceless Assessment Centre also sent one letter to jurisdictional AO requesting to provide all the details/documents seized during the course of search in case of Sanjay Govindram Agrawal indicating involvement of the assessee. 2.2. Considering the information and examining the documents provided by the assessee the NFAC completed the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act read with section 144B of the Act. 2.3. The PCIT observed that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information of accommodation entries totalling to Rs. 1,36,02,120/- from the entry operator Sanjay Govindram Agrawal, but concluded that the AO has not made any addition despite availability of specific information. He further concluded that there is underassessm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. In view of this, we have approached Sanjay Tibrewal through his tax consultant and able to get details of transactions from his books of accounts maintained in the case of Austvinayak Textile. We have found that transactions amounting to 2,11,24,031 were entered into with independent Proprietor firm M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. of Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P), we have also ascertained from the books of M/s. Dee Are Products and all transactions were matching. We submit herewith following documents for your honours verification. a. Ledger account of M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P) from the books of Austvinayak Textiles. b. Ledger account of Austvinayak Textiles from books of M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P). c. Income Tax Return of M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P). d. Audited Accounts of M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P). e. All Bank Statements of M/s. Dee Are Products Prop. Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P) highlighting the transactions. f. Al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2.6. The assessee also placed reliance on some judicial precedents before PCIT: a. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del). b. Smt.Juthika Kar vs. ITO in ITA No.1128/Kol/2009 dated 16.05.2012. c. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) (HC) (FB). d. CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (All.)(HC). e. Hero Briggs & Stratton Auto Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 127 (Delhi) (Trib.). f. Punjab Wool Syndicate v. ITO [2012] 17 ITR 439 (Chandigarh) (Trib.). g. Vijay Kumar Megotia v. CIT [2010] 3 ITR (T) 760 (Pat.)(Trib.). 2.7. However, Ld.Pr.CIT was not satisfied with the submission of the assessee and by exercising the powers u/s. 263 of the Act set aside the order of the AO with a direction to AO to pass a fresh order after duly examining the facts of the case to the extent of the issue. While doing so he primarily relied on the information available on INSIGHT PORTAL and concluded that there is ample evidence that the assessee has transacted with Sanjay Govindram Agrawal for accommodation entries. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al, no additions were made by the AO. 6.2. We have noted that the assessee provided detailed explanations and evidence to show that the transactions in question were conducted by M/s. Dee Are Products, a proprietorship firm of Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta (PAN: ACVPG1840P), and not by the assessee. Relevant documents, including ledger accounts, bank statements, and tax returns of M/s.Dee Are Products, were submitted to both the AO and the Ld.PCIT. 6.3. The Ld.PCIT, relying primarily on information available on the INSIGHT portal, concluded that there was ample evidence of transactions between the assessee and Sanjay Govindram Agrawal for accommodation entries, thus exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. In our opinion, mere information on the Insight Portal cannot be considered as evidence based on which the Ld.PCIT assumed his jurisdiction especially when the assessee has explained that the transactions are not pertaining to the assessee company but pertains to another person. 6.4. We have considered the judicial precedents cited by the assessee in the submission to the Ld.PCIT, including: 1. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167) (Del.): In this ca....