TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without waiting / receiving of remand report from JAO? 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without verifying the veracity of transaction or creditworthiness of the transactions with Mamta Trading company while remand proceeding, the credit worthiness of the above party was not proved? 4. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without properly considering the remand report and various facts finding during the assessment proceedings? 5. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- disallowed of bogus sale." 3. Record reveals tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has received total amount of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- from bank account of M/s Mamta Trading Company, Proprietor Shri Suresh Kumar who had not filed return of income and accordingly amount so received from him is unexplained. Submissions were filed by the ld. AR mentioning that assessee has made sales of iron bar to him and these payments so received are by way of sale proceeds and furnished various evidences to support this claim. However, ld. AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148, after passing order u/s 148A(d) of I.T. Act. Afterwards the assessee submitted detailed explanation and evidence in support of its claim, but the ld. AO observed that heavy payments have been received from M/s Mamta Trading Company and its proprietor Shri Suresh Kumar has not filed the return of income and accordingly these credits are unexplained and thereby added the same in the hands of assessee vide order dated 23.05.2023. Aggrieved with the addition, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A), NFAC. It was submitted before ld. CIT(A) that the assessee company had made sales to M/s Mamta Trading Company during the regular course of business and amount received is by way of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has rightly added the same. It was requested by ld. DR that order of ld. CIT(A) may be reversed and order of AO may be restored. 7. Per contra, the ld. AR of assessee has filed detailed written submission against the revenue's ground of appeal No. 1 to 5 on this issue, which is as under: "Departmental Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 5: (Submission filed by assessee) In these grounds of appeal, department has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- made by ld.AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act by alleging the amount received from one customer Mamta Trading Co. on account of Sales as unexplained. Brief facts pertaining to the grounds as stated above are that on the basis of information stated to have been received by ld.AO from the DDIT (Inv.) Rohtak through insight portal of the department, it was held that during the year under consideration assessee company has received an amount of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- from the M/s Mamta Trading Company, Prop. Shri Suresh Kumar (PAN: CLSPK-9222-P) through Bank Account No. 1025CBCA01000339 with Corporation Bank and since Shri Suresh Kumar (PAN: CLSPK-9222-P) has not filed his return of income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cessional rates. The said C Forms so received by the assessee company were submitted in original to the Rajasthan State Commercial Taxes Department who after making verification of the genuineness of the form has assessed the assessee company on such sale at concessional rate of tax. It is also relevant to state that C Form can be issued only by the trader or manufacturer who purchase the goods in furtherance of the business and cannot be issued by any other entity like a direct consumer of the goods (APB 104-111) 5. Copy of day to day stock register maintained by the assessee company wherein the outward entry of the goods sold to M/s Mamta Trading Co. is duly highlighted (APB 211-281) 6. Copy of the VAT 49 (e-way bill under old VAT Act) issued by Rajasthan Sales Tax Department containing complete details of the recipient of the goods i.e. Mamta Trading Co., details of invoice raised of the goods under transportation, details of transportation vehicle including vehicle number etc. It is also relevant to state that VAT 49 form was mandatory to be carried with the vehicle under transport and a copy of the same stood submitted by the buyer to the respective Governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax, then appropriate action needs to be taken in his case, instead of penalizing assessee by making huge addition in its case. Accordingly addition so made deserves to be deleted. It is further submitted that ld.AO has made addition on account of credits in bank account u/s 68, which is not applicable in the present case as the sum is properly recorded in books of accounts and no adverse inference was drawn by ld.AO towards such entries in books of accounts either in assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) or re-assessment proceedings. It is further submitted that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts as sales are already part of the income which is already credited in P&L account. Hence, there is no occasion to consider the same as income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Furthermore, assessee has discharged its burden by substantiating the transaction through all the plausible evidences. Therefore, the same cannot be held as unexplained cash credit in any manner. Hon'ble Delhi bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs Subhash Gupta in ITA No.1548/Del/2022 has held that s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s Ramlal Jewellers vs ACIT ITA No. 1600/Mum/2023 (Mumbai ITAT) (iii) Shree Sanand Textiles Industries Ltd Vs The Dy.CIT (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad (ITA 995/AHD/2014) dated 06/01/2020 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (iv) Abhishek Prakashchand Chhajed vs ITO ITA No. 113/Ahd/2023 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (v) M/s Hirapanna Jewellers Vishakhapattnam ITA No. 253/Viz/2020 and CO No. 02/Viz/2021 (Vishakhapattnam ITAT) (vi) DCIt vs Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. ITAT No. 352/del/2021 (Delhi ITAT) It is further submitted that ld.AO has passed the re-assessment order solely on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.) Rohtak, which information was recorded by some other officials in some other case, behind the back of assessee without providing assessee of opportunity of cross examination of the purchasing party alleged to be a non-filer. Also, ld. AO did not provide complete information relied upon before making such a huge addition in the hands of the assessee company. Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CCE Vs. Andaman Timber Industries, (324) ELT 641 has held as under: "6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee and opportunity of cross examination is provided more so when assessee placed on record all the evidences. The relevant findings are as under: Headnote: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to appellant, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to appellant, who on other hand, had prima facie discharged initial burden of substantiating purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and fact of payment through cheques, VAT Registration of sellers and their Income-tax Return - He held that purchases made by appellant was acceptable and disallowance was to be deleted - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the response was not received from the said party, ld. AO took the adverse view and concluded that sum of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- received by assessee from M/s Mamta Trading Co. is unexplained. In this regard, it is submitted that first of all, notice u/s 133(6) was issued at the feg-end of the re-assessment proceedings and further a time of merely 3 days was allowed to the said other party to furnish documents related to transactions which took place around 10 years back. Hon'ble Delhi bench of ITAT in the case of Phool Singh Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 2901/Del/2014, has held that: "Merely because 133(6) notices issued to the party returned un-served though it was the same address, which was supplied by supplier while filing its income tax return, no fault can be put on the shoulder of assessee." Hon'ble Delhi bench of ITAT in the case of M/s Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO in ITA No. 2715/Del/2016 has held as under: "It is undisputed facts that the distinctive nos. for the sale of shares in respect of three companies were not provided by the assessee but the same cannot be basis for treating the same as unexplained cash credit und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat these could represent concealed stock or inflated expenses and made addition - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed addition - Whether since AO neither made any enquiry from bank authorities to find out final destination of money nor enquired from sales tax department about persons to whom relevant sales tax registration number was allotted, and also did not find any defect and irregularity in statements, books of account and bills, etc., produced by assessee he was unjustified in treating purchase as bogus and making addition - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming addition was to be quashed and addition was to be deleted - Held, yes. With regards to allegation of ld. AO that assessee was informed about notice issued to Mamta Trading Co, u/s 133(6) and that assessee was responsible to communicate with the party and ensure compliance, it is submitted that: firstly, assessee was intimated about this only vide show cause notice dated 02.05.2023, i.e. merely 20 days prior to completion of assessment and secondly, assessee entered into transactions of sale with that party 10 years back and in such long span of time, changes in the address/ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ld. CIT(A) and same is tabulated below for ready reference: Date of notice issued by ld. AO in remand proceedings Date of Reply filed by assessee company APB 27.06.2024 08.07.2024 466 - 469 05.11.2024 06.11.2024 & 15.11.2024 470 -477 Thus looking into facts of the case it is evident that it is not the case where ld. CIT(A) passed the order without waiting for the remand report as alleged by the ld. DR in the grounds of appeal. Instead, despite being having all the information, ld. AO choses to not to provide the remand report to ld. CIT(A), even though ample of time was provided by ld. CIT(A). Thus ld. CIT(A) rightly passed the order after providing nearly 8 months to ld. AO to provide the remand report and therefore consequential deletion of addition made by ld. AO by ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case of assessee company deserves to be upheld. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reiterated that the assessee company has genuinely carried out the transaction of sales of goods with M/s Mamta Trading Co. and also submitted all the plausible evidences in support of the same and me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... b. Copy of Notice dated 01.12.2015 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) 423-424 c. Copy of reply dated 02.12.2015 filed during the course of assessment proceedings, whereby stock statements was submitted by assessee and justification on trading results was also submitted 425-427 d. Copy of reply dated 30.12.2015 filed during the course of assessment proceedings, whereby: -stock detail of raw material as well as finished goods and - Details of top 10 parties to whom sales was made by assessee was furnished. 428-430 9. Copy of Written Submission dated 24.02.2024 filed before ld. CIT(A), NFAC 431-435 10. Copy of Written Submission dated 07.03.2024 filed before Ld. CIT, NFAC 436-465 11. Copy of reply filed before ld. AO in remand report proceedings on 08.07.2024, 06.11.2024 & 15.11.2024 466-477 12 Copy of Invoices to M/s Mamta Trading Co. [some invoices being attached being voluminous, however complete invoices are submitted before ld. AO & ld. CIT(A)] 478-505 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Before d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee, and also considering that sufficient time and opportunity was allowed by ld. CIT(A) to the ld. AO for furnishing remand report, we do not find any merit in the argument and ground to this effect taken by the revenue is rejected. 10. Now coming to the merits of the addition, it is seen that assessee company has received an amount of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- through banking channel from M/s Mamta Trading Company during the year as sale proceeds of Iron / TMT Bar sold to him and same has been included in the turnover and consequently in the Profit & Loss Account by the assessee company. It is seen that ld. AO has received information from DDIT (Inv.), Rohtak that said party has not filed income tax return. Accordingly, ld. AO observed that the amount received from said party M/s Mamta Trading Company by the assessee company is unexplained as the same is on account of bogus sale and therefore, same was added. The ld. AR of the assessee has furnished various evidences and details in support of its claim of sale made to the said party and payment being received by way of banking channels against the sale proceeds which are as under:- i. Return filed by Assessee Company with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee company on such sale at concessional rate of tax. Thus it was submitted by the ld. AR that such sale has been considered to be correctly made by Commercial Tax Department of two different states namely Haryana and Rajasthan and they did not find any infirmity in the sale made to the said party. It was also brought to our notice that C form can be issued only by trader or manufacturer who purchase the goods in furtherance of the business and cannot be issued by direct consumer of the goods. Accordingly the said party would most likely be trader or may be manufacturer. It was further submitted that form VAT-49 which was mandatory to be carried with the vehicle contained complete details of recipient of the goods, details of invoice raised and details of vehicle number etc., which stood submitted by the buyer to the respective government VAT authorities. 12. It was further argued that these plethora of evidences cannot be brushed aside without rebutting them or without bringing any contrary evidence on record and merely making addition of such huge amount only because that party has not filed any return of income is not justified. If by any chance that party has failed to file h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to support the findings of the ld. AO of these sales being bogus, more particularly when aforesaid various evidences filed by assessee company in support of the sale has not been controverted by ld. AO and moreover there is no contrary evidence brought on record by the ld. AO. 17. Since sales so made by the assessee company to the said party is found to be genuine, the sale proceeds has to be received by the assessee company from the said party. The said party has sent the amount through banking channels, which is not in dispute. Now the only point remains that said party has not filed his income tax return. But this issue cannot be considered to be fatal in the case of assessee company wherein the assessee company has made commercial transaction of sale to him. The Hon'ble Courts have held that when sales have been established to be made by a concern, then amount received by way of such trading transaction cannot be added u/s 68, as contra-distinct from loan transaction which would naturally be added u/s 68 if found unexplained. 18. Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs Subhash Gupta in ITA No.1548/Del/2022has held that sales cannot be added u/s 68 unless they are pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;s income on account of cash credit and Tribunal deleted addition holding that said amount actually represented sale proceeds realized by assessee, no question of law arose from order of Tribunal. The Hon'ble Court observation are as under: Section 68, read with section 260A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Question of law) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to income of assessee on account of unexplained credit under section 68 - Tribunal deleted addition by arriving at a finding of fact that amount in question was received by assessee in its bank account against sale made by it and it was credited in sales account offering as income - Whether no question of law arose from order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Paras 10, 12and 15] [In favour of assessee] Section 68, read with section 260A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Question of law) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to income of assessee on account of cash credit - Tribunal deleted addition holding that said amount actually represented sale proceeds realised by assessee - Whether no question of law arose fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the same from the AO having jurisdiction over the six aforesaid companies. Thus the assessee cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the six companies as discussed above failed to reply to the notices issued to them under section 133(6) of the Act. The assessee has duly explained the source of money received on the sale of shares/ investment and the assessee is not answerable for the source of money in the hands of aforesaid six companies. It is undisputed fact that the necessary details as the confirmation and contract notes were duly filed by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid parties and no defect of whatsoever was pointed out by the lower authorities. After considering the facts and totality of the case as discussed above, we are inclined to reverse the order of authorities below hence the ground of appeal of assessee is allowed." 22. In the instant case, it is not the case of revenue that the said party is untraceable. In fact, the DDIT (Inv.) Rohtak did make some enquiries from the said party and only then he would have received the details of bank account etc. which was later on passed to ld. AO of assessee company. 23. It was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d.AO vide notice u/s 148A(b) and on the basis of which case was reopened is reproduced hereunder for ready reference (APB 19-20): "1. In your case, information was received from the DDIT(Inv.), Rohtak through Insight. As per specific information available with the department, during the year under consideration you have received an amount of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- from the account of M/s Mamta Trading Company, Prop. Shri Suresh Kumar (PAN: CLSPK9222P) having Account No. 1025CBCA01000339 with Corporation Bank. Shri Suresh Kumar (PAN: CLSPK9222P) has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14. Thus, the huge credit in your account from an account of a non-filer is without any business rationale & source of these credits in account of the assessee remains unexplained. You have filed return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 26.09.2013 declaring total loss of Rs. 5,60,705/-. 2. On going through return of income filed by you for AY 2013-14, it is noticed that income from above transaction is not included in your ITR. Therefore, it is established that same is not offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. 3. As stated in preceding paras, the income of Rs. 8,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere submitted by the assessee. In view of this, it is submitted that there is no escapement of income in the hands of assessee company. As stated above, all the facts related to the amount received in the bank account alleged as unexplained were duly disclosed in the Return of Income as part of the sales consideration and were verified by Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). At this juncture, it is submitted that during the course of hearing, during original assessment proceedings, details regarding Sales made to top 10 parties were sought. In response to such notice, assessee, furnished details vide letter dated 30.12.2015 (APB 428-430) which inter alia included details of sales made to M/s Mamta Trading Co. These details were verified and nothing adverse was commented by ld. AO in his order u/s 143(3). Your goodself would appreciate that in these circumstances, reopening of assessment by doubting the consideration received against the sales made by the assessee company to M/s Mamta Trading Co. is nothing more than mere Change of Opinion. Even under the new reassessment provisions, the Assessing Officer has the power to reassess only when t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 taxmann.com 159 (Bombay) has decided this issue. Gist of the decision reproduced Section 37(1), read with sections 147 and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessee-NBFC claimed expenditure on software consumables - During scrutiny, assessee submitted transaction wise summary on expenditure on software consumables and Assessing Officer after considering said submission passed assessment order without making any adjustments - Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued reopening notice on ground that expenses on software consumables were capital expenditure which would not be allowable under section 37(1) - Whether since expenses on account of software consumables were debited in profit and loss account and a detailed break-up of said expenses were submitted before Assessing Officer during course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer would not have any power to review his own assessment when during original assessment assessee provided all relevant information which was considered by him before passing assessment order - Held, yes - Whether thus, reopening of assessment was a mere change of opinion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there was no fresh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of impugned reasons. A perusal of the 'Reasons' recorded by the AO in this case reveals that at the time of recording of these 'Reasons' the AO had examined original assessment records only and no fresh material had come in the possession of the AO. In response to our specific query also, Ld DR could not point out any fresh material available with the AO at the time of reopening of the case of the assessee. Thus, assertion of the assessee that there was no fresh material with AO for reopening of this case, remained uncontroverted." It is also submitted that "information" available with AO must suggest that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, whereas in the instant case information is that assessee has received credit in bank account from account of a non filer, which in itself does not suggest any escapement. Moreover, in response to notice issued by ld.AO u/s 148A(b), assessee furnished all the necessary evidences in support of genuineness of the transaction is respect of which information was available, however ld.AO without rebutting any single document and without bring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led Income Tax Return and documents produced for verification were simply brushed aside. In this regard, as submitted above, assessee has made the commercial transaction of sale of goods to M/s Mamta Trading Co. and had received the payments against such supplies which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee company who has not only complied with all the statutory requirements of getting its accounts audited and filing the income tax return within the stipulated time permitted under the law but also complied with the other relevant laws such as VAT, Central Excise, etc. where the taxes on such sales were duly collected and paid and the respective authorities have assessed the same without any doubts. * Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) Reassessment - Notice - Condition precedent - Formation of belief that income escaped assessment - Assessing Officer treating share application money as bogus accommodation entries - Payments through banking channel and companies investing money genuine - No independent application of mind by Assessing Officer but acting under information from investigation wing - Notice to be quashed - Income Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Suresh Kumar, who had not filed Return of Income. Assessee vide reply dated 14/06/2022 (APB 21-32) filed in response to notice u/s 148A (b), challenged the validity of reopening of assessment. Moreover, detailed submission on merits was furnished alongwith documentary evidences, in support of genuineness of the transaction and stated that the said amount was received as a consideration towards the sale of goods to the said party. However the same were not appreciated and the order was passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued. Thereafter reassessment order was passed adding the entire sale amount of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- received from the said party, alleging it to be unexplained. 29. The ld. AR of the assessee objected that re-assessment proceedings were initiated beyond six years and accordingly beyond the time stipulated u/s 149 and are therefore, barred by limitation. It was submitted by the ld. AR that reopening so done by issue of notice u/s 148 dated 12/05/2021 is barred by limitation, as notice under the old law could have been validly issued on or before 31.03.2020 for A.Y. 2013-14. 30. We have gone through the records and submissions advanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 148A(b)and also order u/s 148A(d) dated 29/07/2022, reason for reopening was that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 8,34,73,192/- from bank account of M/s Mamta Trading Company and its proprietor Shri Suresh Kumar has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Thus the huge credit received from an account of a non-filer remains unexplained. It has been further mentioned in the notice u/s 148A(b) that on going through the return of income, it is noticed that income from above transaction is not included by the assessee company in its ITR. It was submitted before the AO that assessee company has received the amount against the sale proceeds. Moreover, the said receipt on account of sale has been declared by the assessee in his financial statement and these have been duly accepted in the original assessment proceedings. In fact the details of sales of ten parties were asked for by the then AO and details so submitted by the assessee company included the details of sale made to aforesaid party namely M/s Mamta Trading Company. Accordingly the sales made to aforesaid party has been verified in the original assessment proceedings and those very sales has been tried to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d notice u/s 148 dated 12.05.2021. Afterwards in view of the decision of UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal, new notices by way of show cause to the assessee was required to be issued u/s 148A(b). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal has very categorically said that u/s 148A(b), the Assessing Officer has to comply with two requirements: (i) issuance of a show cause notice; and (ii) supply of all the relevant information which forms the basis of the show cause notice. The supply of the relevant material and information allows the assessee to respond to the show causenotice.The deemed notices were effectively incomplete because the other requirement of supplying the relevant material or information to the assessee was not fulfilled. The second requirement could only have been fulfilled by the revenue by an actual supply of the relevant material or information that formed the basis of the deemed notice. In compliance to the aforesaid requirement, a notice u/s 148A(b) dated 29.05.2022 was issued to the assessee for the purpose of supplying relevant material or information, giving reasons for proposed reopening of the assessment. The content of this show cause notice is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s amount has been received as sale proceeds and undisputedly has been received through banking channel. Sales so declared to the party by the assessee company is verifiable and supported by various evidences. Accordingly, the information of said party not filing the return of income cannot be considered in the case of assessee company reason for forming the belief that 'income has escaped assessment' in the case of assessee company. In fact, the said information of not filing of the return by the said party should have been considered as "reason to believe" of income escaping assessment in the case of M/s Mamta Trading Company and it can be a 'reason to suspect' but not 'reason to believe' in the present case. However it is seen that sale to the aforesaid party M/s Mamta Trading Company has been made by the assessee company and the amount received has been shown by the assessee company as sale proceeds. These transactions by way of sale proceeds have been properly recorded in the books of accounts and have been included in the total turnover of the assessee company and are also forming part of Profit & Loss Account. Accordingly, we find that point No. 2 mentioned in the show cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and sale will be a 'good reason to suspect' that something is not correct but only because the other party to whom sale has been made by the assessee company, has not filed the return of income, then treating the entire sale proceeds received from the said party as the unaccounted income of the assessee company is not justified, when particularly the sales have been held to be genuine. Without prejudice to above, non-filing of return by the party having transaction with the assessee company cannot be considered to be the reason for 'formation of belief' in the case of assessee company that income of the assessee company has escaped assessment. The AR has also submitted that in the original assessment u/s 143(3), the details of sales to ten parties were asked for which were submitted by the assessee and these included details of sale made to the aforesaid party namely M/s Mamta Trading Company. The then ld. AO has perused and scrutinized the details alongwith other details submitted before him and after being satisfied had passed order u/s 143(3). Now reassessment proceedings so taken up on the same issue of sale made to the aforesaid party would tantamount to 'change of opinion'.....