TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s Ahroha Fincap Ltd. v. ITO. 2. The learned ITAT had allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee (M/s Agroha Fincap Ltd.) against an order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter CIT(A)], whereby the Assessee's appeal against the assessment order dated 14.12.2018, was rejected. 3. The Assessee's assessment of income for the previous year relevant to assessment year (AY) 2011-12 was re-opened by issuance of a notice dated 30.03.2018 under Section 148 of the Act. 4. The reasons for reassessing the Assessee's income as set out in the assessment order indicates that the information was received from DIT (Investigation) to the effect that one Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain was providing accommodation entries ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessee from the entry operators: Cheque Book Date From Company Name To Company /Person Name Name of The Issuing Bank Cheque/R TGS/PO No/Cheque Date Amount (Rs.) Name of The Middleman / Media tor Annexure No. Page No. 18.0 6.10 Blue Bell Finance Ltd. Agroha Fincap Ltd. Axis RTGS 25,00,000 Anil Singhal A-10 Page 36 6. It is further stated that on examination of the returns it was noted that the Assessee had increased its authorised capital by Rs. 5,00,000/- and its paid-up capital by Rs. 4,80,000/-. The security premium account was credited by a sum of Rs. 43,20,000/-. Thus, the Assessee had increased its shareholder's fund by an aggregate sum of Rs. 48,00,000/- 7. The Assessing Officer had issued the notice dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] erred in holding that the Department could have proceeded only under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] and not under Section 147 of the Act?" 13. The present appeal was heard along with ITA No.401/2022 as the said appeal was also admitted on a similar question of law. 14. By a separate judgment delivered in ITA No. 401/2022, the question of law as framed has been answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. For the sake of brevity, we do not consider it apposite to reproduce the reasons and discussion as set out in the said decision in this order. However, the same may also be read as a part of this order. 15. For the said reasons, the question framed in the present pet....