TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B of the Income Tax Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 25.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 46,72,558/-. The original assessment was completed at total income of Rs. 47,11,740/-. Subsequently, the AO had received a suspicious transactions report (STR) with reference to a company by the name "Dishita Gems Pvt. Ltd", which was engaged in providing accommodation entries. The AO had recorded the reason that the assessee company had obtained accommodation entry of Rs. 8,83,17,429/- from the said M/s Dishita Gems Pvt. Ltd and income to that extent had escaped assessment. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 after obtaining approval of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irm the action of A.O that the assessment u/s 147 is bad and required to be quashed as notice u/s 143(2) is issued by NFAC and which does not have authority to conduct assessment before 29.03.2022. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts to improve recorded reasons by adding words "and its associates" after words Dishita Gems and which words are not there in original recorded reasons. 7. The appellant prays that the Notice u/s 148 is bad as sanction obtained u/s 151 is not in accordance with law and mechanical. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts to confirm the action of A.O to make the addition inspite of not considering and disposing of objections on issues related to Dishita Gems in subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts to confirm the action of AO and failed to appreciate that just because of non appearance of parties in response to summon U/S 133(6) does not amount that the appellant has bogus purchases/Sales & specially when confirmation from the creditor was provided and even cross examination was not allowed of witness inspite of demanded by the appellant. 16. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts to confirm the action of A.O to appreciate that addition has resulted in exorbitant G.P. which is impossible in this business & also with past records and also subsequent assessment u/s 143(3), where there was no bogus purchase and hence making the addition bad & illegal. 17. The learned CIT(A) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm of bills, cheque payments, subsequent sales etc. and confirming addition on the basis of third party statements without any corroborative evidences. 24. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts to confirm the action of A.O to consider objections against show cause while passing the assessment order and which is against the CBDT instructions and natural justice and in such a case appellant prays that assessment order is required to be quashed. 25. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts to confirm the action of A.O in when the statements made by dealers cannot be relied when made one sided to save their skin and without providing copy of the statement to the appellant and failed to appreciate that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... style of M/s Dishita Gems Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the notice issued by the AO in respect of accommodation entry of Rs. 8,83,17,429/- taken from M/s Dishita Gems Pvt. Ltd was without verification of facts. The Ld. AR submitted that once the AO had found that no such transaction was made by the assessee with M/s Dishita Gems Pvt. Ltd, the reopened proceeding should have been dropped. The Ld. AR contended that since no addition was made by the AO on the basis of the information on which reopening was done, it was not open for the AO to make addition in respect of any other issue. In this respect he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohamed Juned Dadani (355 ITR 172). The Ld. AR submitted that on merits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of M/s Dishita Gems Pvt Ltd. We do not find name of any other concern appearing in the reason as recorded by AO. In the assessment order, however, no addition has been made in respect of any accommodation entry taken by the assessee from M/s Dishita Gems Pvt Ltd. According to the assessee, no transaction was carried out by it with M/s Dishita Gems Pvt Ltd and that the reason recorded by the AO was based on wrong information. This submission of the assessee is found to be prima facie correct, as no addition was made by the AO in respect of any transaction with M/s Dishita Gems Pvt Ltd. It is seen from the assessment order that the AO had made inquiries u/s. 133(6) of the Act with M/s Gyan Gems by recording that this was one suc....