2026 (6) TMI 1050

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") reopening the assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner has submitted that reopening of the assessment is required to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind by the respondent on the credit entries mentioned in the Return of Income (ROI). It is submitted that reopening is premised on the allegations of accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- as the same is unfounded in view of the specific credit entries of Rs. 25,00,000/- mentioned in the ROI. It is submitted that the respondents have assumed that income to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- has escaped the assessment. While referri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....back to the entry operator does not extinguish the taxability of Rs. 70,00,000/-, which entered the books of the petitioner from unexplained sources. He has submitted that the statutory limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- will not rescue the petitioner from reopening of the assessment under the provision of section 149 (1()b) of the Act. 4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and also perused the documents, as pointed out by them. 5. The petitioner filed its ROI for the AY 2013- 14 on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. NIL after set-off of brought forward loss of Rs. 3,52,561/-. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in its ledger account. It is not in dispute that these entries are annexed along with notice dated 12.04.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act. 8. A bare perusal of the entries reveals that for Acute Consultancy Ltd., an alleged bogus entity, name of the beneficiary is alleged to be the petitioner wherein the debit entry of Rs. 20,00,000/- has been referred which is the opening balance; for Sampada Chemicals Ltd., an alleged bogus entity, against the beneficiaries, name of the petitioner is referred, wherein debit of Rs. 25,00,000/- is mentioned against the credit entry of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Thus, this would amount to be NIL entry as the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- alleged to have been debited from the petitioner, which have been subsequ....