TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 17,07,86,833/-, addition of Rs. 5,41,000/- were sustained and balance were deleted in terms of the order of CIT(A) dated 15.11.2021. In the meantime, the case of the assessee is reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 on 18/03/2019. In response to which the assessee has filed its return of income on 15.04.2019. The reason for reopening was based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, U-3(1), Kolkata that assessee has transferred undisclosed funds of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the transaction with M/s Mayfair Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata with other M/s Mangalmayee Hirise Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Neelkamal Dealcom P. Ltd. After considering the submissions of the assessee and also further perusing the material/information available on record, the reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2019 wherein addition of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged accommodation entry in the form of sale of share at on premium. 3. Against such order, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed the appeal on the merits vide impugned order dated 03.10.2022 against which the present appeal is filed by the Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sanjay Sawhney vs. PCIT in ITA No.834/2019 dated 18.05.2020 wherein the Hon'ble Court was of the view that the assessee was entitled to defend the ground decided against him by ld. CIT(A) and support the order in appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. The Hon'ble Court further observed that the assessee could rely upon rule 27 of ITAT Rules and advance his arguments, even though it had not filed cross objections against the findings which are against his. With these, we are taking first the legal ground of the assessee with regard to the validity of order passed u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) of the Act as was taken in ground of appeal No.1 before ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. AR submits that from the perusal of the reasons recorded it appears that the Assessing Officer merely on suspicion has reopened the completed assessment in case of assessee, without making any verification of the material available on record. He further submit that in the reasons recorded it can be observed that it was not clear as to whether the assessee has received the funds or made payment. Further in the reasons recorded, it was observed that on verificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer which was examined in the light of the material available on record, thus, the conclusion that certain income has escaped assessment is correct. He, therefore, prayed that in the instant case reopening has been done in accordance with law and the same deserves to be upheld. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the case of the assessee has been reopened by recording the reason that as per the information received from DDIT (Inv.), U-3(I), Kolkata that in the case of M/s Mayfair barter Pvt. Ltd., A/C No.695205122436 with Kolkata, NS Raod Branch (with others M/s Mangalmayee Hirise Pvt. Ltd. A/c 695205123136, M/s Neelkamal Dealcom P. Ltd. A/c 695205128032) it is seen to have transferred fund from their account, it was revealed that the assessee company M/s Debonair Tie-up Ltd. transferred such undisclosed fund to their account and was beneficiary after triggering suspicion and involving amount to Rs. 15,00,000/- for such period which remained unexplained. "On the verification of the return of income of the assessee company it was prime facie noticed that the said transactions have not been reflec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to his "reason to believe", had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then, the mere fact that the Assessing Officer entertained a reason to believe, albeit even a genuine reason to believe, would not continue to vest him with the jurisdiction, to subject to tax, any other income, chargeable to tax, which the Assessing Officer may find to have escaped assessment, and which may come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under section 147." 10. Further, in the case of CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236, Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: "Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance or core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped ....