TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 (for short 'the Act') for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year (for short 'A.Y.') 2012-13. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner filed a return of income on 31.03.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed his regular return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.08.2012. No assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act. However, an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 17.05.2013 was made, wherein the return of income has been accepted and no demand has been raised. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2019 was issued to the petitioner alleging that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The petitioner accordingly filed a fresh return on 31.03.2019. On de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in any manner. It is also submitted that, in fact, the reasons recorded are of 11.03.2019 and not of 09.04.2019, and the original reasons recorded on 11.03.2019 have not been provided, though specifically requested by the petitioner. 4.2 In support of his submissions, by placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Technocrat Industries vs. J.C. Shah, Second Income-Tax Officer, (1990) 52 Taxman 91 (Bombay) it is submitted that the Assessing Officer is supposed to provide the material and the information on which the reliance is placed. It is submitted that the reopening is also premised on a very general and vague statement of one Mr. Amit Dalmia recorded under Section 133A of the Act on 30.03.2015. 4.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommodation entries. It is submitted that in his statement recorded under Section 133A of the Act Mr. Amit Dalmia has admitted that he is the authorized signatory of the Company - Shri Manas Taru Roy, who is a dummy Director controlled by him. It is submitted that thus M/s. TDPL is a shell company with whom the present petitioner has transacted and hence it is urged that looking to the modus operandi of all the companies which are mentioned in the impugned show cause notice and layering of the transactions would require further assessment and hence it is urged that the writ petition may not be entertained, at this stage. 6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The established facts are that the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner and the bald allegation that it is the beneficiary of an accommodation entry of Rs.50 lakhs from M/s. TDPL there is no material discussed connecting the present petitioner to the various entities mentioned therein. The petitioner, in its reply dated 24.04.2019 and 08.05.2019, categorically refuted the allegations and requested that to provide the information or any tangible material connecting it with the shell companies be provided. The petitioner has categorically dealt with the layering of transactions as alleged in the notice and pointed out that there is no name of the petitioner which can be found connecting it to the account of M/s. TDPL. It was replied that, in the absence of any direct nexus regarding the involvement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... us that, the impugned notice as well as the reasons recorded do not in any manner reveal any tangible material connecting the petitioner with so-called accommodation entry taken through Real Time Gross Settlement (for short 'RTGS') from M/s. TDPL on 27.03.2012. Thus, the reopening of the assessment is premised on suspicion, which cannot take the place of the 'reason to believe', which is the quintessential requirement under Section 147 of the Act. 9. There is another aspect which is interesting to note, that the date of the reasons mentioned at Annexure-B, which were supplied to the petitioner, is 09.04.2019. The petitioner has categorically made a statement that the actual reasons recorded are dated 11.03.2019 and the same has not been....