TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department in resorting to the reassessment proceedings and issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 3. That the order dated 24.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the 1.d. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department in 3 reopening the case of the Appellant Firm for the assessment on the basis of search u/s 132 of the Act conducted in the case of Shri Himanshu Verma on 13.04.2017 as the reopening of the case was bad in law as the only option available with the ld. Assessing Officer was to resort to provisions of section 153C of the Act. 4. That the order dated 24.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ountry challenging the validity of reopening made subsequent to amendment in section 148 with effect from 01.04.2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 held that notice issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 shall be deemed to have been issued notice under section 148A as mandated by Finance Act, 2021 which shall be treated as show cause notice as per section 148A(b). As per direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the AO provided opportunity to the assessee. The assessee filed its reply on 11.06.2022. The reply of assessee was considered and all objections were settled / disposed of any order dated 30.07.2022 under section 148A(d). The AO issued fresh notice under section 148 dated 30.07.2022 with approval of PCIT - 19, Mumbai. 4. The AO recorded that as per the list of beneficiaries, the assessee availed accommodation entry of Rs. 13,45,00,000/- through bogus entity of Himanshu Verma namely Sarvottam Securities Pvt. Ltd. In response to notice under section 148, the assessee filed return of income on 24.08.2022 declaring Nil income. The AO after issuing notice under section 143(2) proceeded for reassessment. 5. During ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. The learned authorised representative (ld AR) of the assessee submits that that assessee filed its return of income for relevant assessment year on 2nd August 2016. Initially, the return was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notice under section 148 on 23 April 2021. The AO obtained the approval of reasons recorded on 23 April 2021. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee, copy of which is filed at page number 10 to 12 of the paper book. As per reasons recorded, the AO was having information through inside application of department, which was forwarded by DDIT (Investigation) Mumbai to AO that search action was carried out on 13 April 2017 in case of Himanshu Verma and other persons who were allegedly providing accommodation entry. As per reasons recorded, statement of Himanshu Verma was recorded wherein he admitted about providing bogus accommodation entry of loans and capital to various persons. Further, list of beneficiary was examined, wherein the assessee was one of the beneficiaries who have taken accommodation entry in the form ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act empowers the AO to necessarily assess /reassess the income which escaped assessment on the basis of formation of reasonable belief for opening the assessment. It is only on the assessing /reassessing such income which has escaped assessment in the reasons recorded, would it be open to assessing officer to assess or reassess any other income, which came to his notice during reassessment proceeding. However, in absence of reassessing income which escaped assessment and which was the basis for formation of belief in the issuing of notice, the order passed on reassessment is bad in law. Such decision has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 5th October 2018. Even no merit, the learned AR of the assessee submits that during re-assessment the assessee furnished complete details to substantiate the unsecured loan of Rs. 3.00 crore from Tish Consultant Private Limited. The AO made addition solely on the basis of information allegedly available with him without making any independent investigation of fact. Once the assessee discharged his primary onus, the onus was shifted on the AO to bring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the names of all four NBFCs viz; SW Consultants Private Limited, CEA Consultants Private Limited, Tish Consultant Private Limited and Lenient Consultant Private Limited, which were involved in providing accommodation entry. The AO also recorded that statement of Shailendra and Anil Agarwal was recorded in post search investigation wherein they admitted about providing accommodation entry through these four NBFCs and also furnished the list of 119 beneficiaries. On examination of list of beneficiaries, it was revealed that Assurity Real Estate LLP (assessee-company) also availed entry of bogus loan advances of Rs. 3.11 Crore from Tish Consultants Private Limited. Thus, the AO made addition on the basis of other information, which was not linked with the reasons recorded by him. The AO made addition other than the reasons recorded, without making addition which was basis for reopening. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee vehemently argued that addition made in the reassessment proceeding is beyond the scope of section 147 and relied on various case laws. 11. We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Jet Airways (supra) held that the Bombay High Court held that....