TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."1. The order passed by Id. CIT(A) is wrong both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reasons recorded u/s 147 by the A.O., which do not confirm to the statutory provision and the decided cases. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the A.O. did not assume jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 as per law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the order passed without assuming the jurisdiction to issue notice as per law was bad in law. 5. In any case the Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment of income at Rs. 3.70 Crore against nil income returned by the assessee. 6. The orders passed by the Id. CIT(A) and A.O. are based on conjectures and summa rises and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied out any actual business activities other than providing accommodation entries and the relevant payments were routed through banks do not have any underlying or actual business transactions. With the above reasons recorded in the reasons, the Assessing Officer recorded and found reasons for believe in para 5 of the reasons recorded as per which, on perusal of various seized documents clearly show that the name of the assessee company appears on this document has taken accommodation entry amounting to Rs. 3.7 crores from S.K. Jain group of companies. Based on that, at para 6.1 of the reasons recorded, AO observed that the assessee company has taken accommodation entries in the form of share capital/premium/ application/loan from the entry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns in which assessee submitted that the alleged accommodation entry is in fact a part of sale proceeds of shares which were purchased by the assessee in the earlier years and in this year, all such shares were sold along with other shares. Schedule 4 of the accounts shows that opening balance of stock-in-trade of Rs. 4.56 crores. The purchases in this year stand at about Rs. 2.87 crores. The opening stock contained the share of the value of Rs. 4.56 crores which included the value of shares of Rs. 2.45 crores mentioned in the reasons recorded. Further the current year purchases of such stock amounted to Rs. 1.25 crores. As mentioned before, all such shares along with others were sold in this year for about Rs. 7.42 crores. Further, it was s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e observation of the Assessing Officer submitted that Assessing Officer has only reasons to believe and these reasons to believe will not apply in the case of the assessee since the Assessing Officer has to form an opinion not belief before initiating proceedings of reopening of assessment. Further he brought to our notice page 13 of the assessment order wherein the Assessing Officer observed and the reply of the assessee company has been considered. It is seen that as on 31.03.2008, assessee company had stock-in-trade amounting to Rs. 4.55 crores which reduced to nil as on 31.03.2009. It is also seen that as per the copies of purchase/sale deals furnished by the assessee, the assessee had sold these stock-in-trade to various parties mentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion based on the information available on record with him. We observe that Assessing Officer also formed an opinion that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry received through entities controlled by Jain Brothers in the form of accommodation entries to the extent of Rs. 3.6 crores by way of share capital/premium/application/loan. However, the assessee has filed objections before the Assessing Officer denying the above transactions and brought to his knowledge that assessee has only sold the shares holding by it as opening stock of about Rs. 4.56 crores and purchases were made during the impugned year of Rs. 2.87 crores only and further intimated that current year purchases of such alleged shares amounted to Rs. 1.25 crores. All the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer a carte blanche to issue a reopening notice. The condition precedent of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on correct facts, must be satisfied by the Assessing Officer so as to have jurisdiction to issue the reopening notice. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has proceeded on fundamentally wrong facts to come to the reasonable belief/conclusion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Further, even when the same is pointed out by the Petitioner, the Assessing Officer in its order disposing of the objection does not deal with factual position asserted by the Petitioner. Thus, it would safe to conclude that the Revenue does not dispute the facts stated by the Petitioner. O....