TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....odation entry provided in form of non- genuine share premium to M/s SSJ Foods Ltd and M/s South Asia Impex. Pvt. Ltd. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,83,50,000/- whereas upholding the addition on account of commission earned @ 2% (Rs.3,67,000/-) which emanates from the unexplained money to the tune of Rs.1,83,50,000/- without considering the facts and enquires made by the AO. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add/ alter/delete/modify any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and running a proprietorship firm under the name of " M/s Shipra Engineers and Consultants". The assessee filed return of income on 21-03-2013 declaring total income at Rs. 42,50,268/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and u/s. 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire which were issued on 14-08-2013 and 02-09-2014 and duly served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue that AO could not make the addition u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant stated that the applicability of section 69A of the Act lays when the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, maintained by him for any source of income and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, then the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such finsncial year. Section 69A of the Act is reproduced here below: 69A Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opinion of the Assessing Officer satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. 7. Admittedly in the present case the respondent/assessee is a non- Resident Indian and his sources of income in India being from interest on bank accounts and interest on income tax refund, he is not obliged to maintain any books of account in India. It appears to us prima facie that the expression "if any specifically used in section 69A of the amplifies that where books of account are not maintained it would not be possible to invoke this provision. But as mentioned above learned counsel for appellant/ revenue requested to keep this question open to be agitated in some better case. We accede to this request." Reliance may be placed on the decision of the DY. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -32(2) Mumbai versus M/s Karthik Construction Co. 2021 (9) TMI459 ITAT Viskhapatnam wherein it is held that Addition u/s 69A can only be made when the assessee found to be in possession of money, bullion, jewelry etc. not recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03-2015. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. In the present case the assessee was not found the owner of any money or other valuable articles but the AO acted upon the statement taken u/s 131(1A) of the Act. The assessee has already been assessed under section 143(3) of the Act at Rs. 2,24,89,20/- by rejecting books of accounts after making the addition of RS.1,82,39,020/- and estimated his profit @8% of the gross receipts of Rs.22,11,16,102/-. We find that Ld. NFAC has examined the issues in the correct perspective and rightly deleted the addition towards the addition on the non-genuine transaction and treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act made by the AO. The reasoning and findings of the Ld. NFAC, while granting relief is on the proper appreciation of law expounded by the judicial dicta. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the NFAC. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Assessee's Cross objection no. 130/Del/2025 9. The assessee raised the following grounds: 1. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee has already been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act and r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the same basis by mechanically giving his approval. Therefore, the proceedings under section 148 were to be quashed. (v) In the case of CIT v. SFIL stock Broking Ltd. [2010] ITR 285 (Del) the Hon'ble High Court held that mere information received from the Dy. Director of IT(Inv.) and direction of the said officer and the Addl. CIT to initiate proceedings under s.147 cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of any thing to show that the AO has independently applied his mind to arrive at a belief that income has escaped assessment. 12. In the reasons recorded the AO stated that Shipra Engineering and Consultant is one of the beneficiary who has given the accommodation entry to M/s Skylark Group. In the information received from the Investigation Wing, it is mentioned that assessee has received the share capital and share premium. A perusal of the reasons for reopening of the case for the impugned assessment year shows that the re-opening was made on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing and there is no independent application of mind by the AO for re-opening. In the above cited cases, it was held that re-opening ....