TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Circle-36(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the ld. AO') u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the information was received from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-III, Gurugram that a search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried on M/s Skylark Group of cases on 25.04.2017. It was found that nongenuine/ bogus banking transactions and entries in the name of share capital and share premium, etc. by South Asia Impex Pvt. Ltd., Krac Securities, GT Comex Pvt. Ltd., Pooja Equity Advisor Pvt. Ltd., earlier known as Pooja Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Secure Automation India Pvt. Ltd. and others to various entities. Statement of Shri Anirudh Joshi was recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act wherein he admitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act. Hence, assessment made without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is void ab- initio and is invalid. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the validity of proceedings u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the reasons recorded for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act are without making any allegation that the appellant has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment as per proviso to section 147 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the validity of the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act is bad and li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs, Analysis and Decision 8.1 I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, assessment order passed by the AO, submissions made by the Appellant, remand report submitted by the AO and rejoinder thereto filed by the Appellant. 8.2 It is the contention of the Appellant that the amount of Rs 9,41,000/- was payable (including service tax and after deducting TDS) in FY 2010-11 to a commission agent of the Appellant namely M/s Sharma Engineers & Consultants on account of commission payable for the sale of Lighter. This amount was paid by the Appellant on 04/08/2011 through HDFC Account No. 2728020000270. It has also been argued that the Appellant's case for AY 2011- 12 was selected for scrutiny and complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered into actual business transaction does not stand on its legs. Hence the contention of assessee firm is not acceptable and it is established beyond any doubt that the assessee firm has utilised tool of booking bogus expenditure so as to create unaccounted wealth by making payment using banking channel and converting same into unaccounted money, thereby evading legitimate taxes thereupon without being entered into any actual business transaction. In the light of the above facts a sum of Rs 9,41,000/-is hereby added to the returned income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act." 8.4 In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the AO is justified in bringing to tax amount of Rs 9,41,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of notice under section 143 (3) of the Act and find fault on the actions of the AO while on purpose the Appellant has not allowed him time to issue notice under section 143 (3) of the Act. 8.6 It is further seen from the record that the notice under section142 (1) of the Act was issued to the Appellant on 13/12/2019 prior to the date on which the Appellant filed its return of income. Section 142 of the Act provides for inquiry before assessment. This fact makes it clear that the AO was going ahead with the assessment in case of the Appellant without waiting for the Appellant to file its return of income. Had the Appellant not filed its return of income, the AO still would have made an assessment albeit under section 144 of the Act....