TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation offered by the assessee in the condonation application along with affidavit, we note that the same is for sufficient and genuine reasons and can not be attributed to the assessee in any manner. Accordingly, the delay for 4 days is condoned and appeal is taken up for adjudication. 03. At the time of hearing, the assessee raised additional ground which is extracted below: "That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the ld. AO wherein no addition has been made for the reason recoded u/s 148(2) of the Act and consequently, he ld. AO has no jurisdiction to make any other addition." 04. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act after recording the reasons u/s 148(2) of the Act. The assessee compomplied with the said notice by submitting that the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2010, may be treated as return filed in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, in the assessment proceedings, assessee filed all the details/information which were called for by the ld. AO and finally no addition was made in respect of Rs. 15 lacs alleged to be accommodation entries taken by the assessee from Violent Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. which was the only issue in the reason recorded u/s 148 (2) of the Act though in the reasons recorded the details as to from whom the accommodation entry was received. However, the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Ganesh Steel & Alloys in ITA No. 929/Kol/2023 dated 11.06.2024. In both the above decision the issue was decided in favour of the assessee after considering the following decisions namely; Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT[2011] 12 taxmann.com 74 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2021] 133 taxmann.com 233 (Bom). 07. Second argument of the ld. AR was that the assessment framed was based upon the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act which are totally silent about the nature of bogus entries and persons with whom the transactions have taken place due to which the income of the assessee have escaped assessment. The AR argued that the AO has recorded a very vague and ambiguous reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n paper companies. We note that the sale of shares in paper companies was not part of the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act. Therefore, when no addition is made for the escaped income as per the reasons recorded, then the AO has no jurisdiction to make any other addition in respect of item of income which has escaped assessment as discovered by the AO during the assessment. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held by following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) and also Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Ran....