TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-. Subsequently, information was received by the Assessing Officer from DDIT (Investigation), Mumbai through Insight Portal that search and seizure action under section 132 was carried out on 15.02.2022 in the case of ARC Group, during which incriminating material and statements were found indicating that the group was engaged in providing accommodation entries through a network of shell concerns controlled by CA Sanjay Shah. 3. On the basis of the said information, the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction and obtained approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai under section 151 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2024. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had received accommodation entries aggregating to Rs. 1,18,69,619/- from the following three concerns during the year under consideration: i. M/s Indian Infotech & Software Ltd. - Rs. 1,01,19,327/- ii. M/s Shivom Investment & Consultancy Ltd. - Rs. 2,40,000/- iii. M/s Consultshah Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 15,10,292/- 4. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices and called for explanation from the assessee. The assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the case u/s 148 on the basis of certain information received, without any proper reason to believe and also not providing any opportunity of cross examination of the person on whose statement, the case has been reopened. b). That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC Delhi while holding the above said finding has failed to appreciate that the reopening is not valid, which is based on third party statement, and no opportunity for cross examination having been afforded to the assessee before resorting to reopening the case and, as such, the proceedings as initiated are bad in law. c). That the reopening only on the basis of statement recorded during search, cannot be held to be incriminating in view of the settled law and, therefore, the statement being not an incriminating evidence, the reopening is devoid of any valid reasoning as per binding judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and Others. d). That the Ld. AO has failed to provide the copy of statement of CA Sanjay Shah and no opportunity of cross examination of CA Sanjay Shah and CA Rushabh Savla was provided to the assessee. 2. That t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anual signatures or digital signatures as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bench in the case of J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd vs DCIT as reported in 176 taxmann.com 193 vide order dated 03.07.2025. Additional grounds on merits 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs. 1,18,69,619/- by ignoring the fact that no credit has been received from the alleged parties during the year under consideration. 4. That the case of the Assessee is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in the case of Ivan Singh vs ACIT as reported in 116 taxmann.com 499 and also by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench in the case of Anandmangal Investment & Finance Pvt Ltd vs ITO in ITA No. 4166/Mum/2025 order dated 18.09.2025. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, or withdraw any of the aforementioned grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 10. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the very foundation of the reopening and the consequent addition is based on factually incorrect information. It was submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... twice. Accordingly, it was contended that both the reopening as well as the addition under section 68 are bad in law and on facts, and the same deserve to be quashed. 15. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). He submitted that the reopening of the assessment was made on the basis of information received pursuant to search action and the statement recorded during the course of search, which constituted tangible material for forming belief that income had escaped assessment. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The core issue for our consideration is whether the addition of Rs. 1,18,69,619/- made under section 68 of the Act can be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. It is an admitted position emerging from the record that the Assessing Officer proceeded on the premise that the assessee had received accommodation entries aggregating to Rs. 1,18,69,619/- from three concerns, namely, M/s Indian Infotech & Software Ltd., M/s Shivom Investment & Consultancy Ltd. and M/s Consultshah Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. during....