TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther: Ground No. 1: Re-opening/ reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law 1.1 The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act and as such, the reassessment order passed is bad in law and ought to be quashed. 1.2 The Learned CIT(A)NFAC erred in confirming reopening of assessment without appreciating that reopening was done on the basis of wrong fact i.e. the transaction between Appellant and Mint Agro Tech Pvt Ltd. was not recorded in the books of accounts by the Appellant whereas the fact was that the said transaction was duly recorded by the Appellant in its books and thus the reason to believe of the AO as well as the sanction u/s 151 was granted on wrong facts and hence reopening is bad in law. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in not considering that the additions of INR 5,30,00,000/- was made by the Learned Assessing Officer ("Learned AO") merely on the basis of information received from the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-S(1), New Delhi i.e. without any independent application of mind, and hence reopening is bad in law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinciples of natural justice and liable to be quashed. 3.2 On the given facts, circumstances and legal propositions, the Learned CIT(A)/NFAC and Learned AO erred in not providing any documentation/ statement recorded against the Appellant and, also in not granting any opportunity to cross examine any statement recorded by the alleged party against the Appellant, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed. Ground No. 4 4.1 Without prejudice to the above, the Learned CIT(A)/NFAC has failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of transactions highlighted in the assessment order aggregated to only INR 3,50,00,000/- however the Learned AO has made addition of INR 5,30,00,000/- which seems arbitrary and without any basis. 4.2 Without prejudice to the above, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of transaction highlighted in the 'reason to believe aggregated to only INR 5.05,00,000/-however Learned AO has made addition of INR 5,30,00,000/- which seems arbitrary and without any basis. Ground No 5: General 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same in most of the cases which again shows that the paper trail has been created just to camouflage the actual transactions. Accordingly, the AO concluded that the amount deposited by the assessee in the bank account of the company, M/s Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., for claiming purchase expenses is nothing but a coloured transaction which has been entered into by the assessee with the intention to inflate the expenses. As a result, the AO held that the amount of INR 5,30,00,000 as an unexplained expenditure in the books of the assessee in terms of the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the addition of INR 5,30,00,000 made under section 69C of the Act. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, are reproduced as follows: - "Analysis and Findings: The reassessment was based on specific information from the DDIT (Inv.)-5(1), Delhi, indicating non-genuine transactions with Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. The appellant's contention that these transactions were recorded in their books of accounts does not suffice to nullify the reopening. The informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents further supported the AO's conclusion that the transactions were intended to inflate expenses artificially. Conclusion: After considering the submissions of the appellant and the findings of the Assessing Officer, it is evident that the reassessment was conducted following due process and based on reasonable grounds. The appellant's arguments regarding the violation of natural justice and inadequate opportunity are not substantiated by the records. The AO's findings of non-genuine transactions and the consequent addition under section 69C are supported by the evidence and the inconsistencies in the appellant's documentation. The addition of Rs. 5,30,00,000 made under section 69C is upheld. The appeal filed by assessee is dismissed." 5. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, on the basis of the information received from the DDIT(Inv.)-5(1), Delhi regarding certain transactions as appearing in the bank account of M/s Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. with the assessee, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. ....