TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued on 21-03-2014, on the ground that the assessee has taken accommodation entries from M/s. Kunal Gems, M/s. Natasha Enterprises and M/s. Mohit International amounting to Rs. 12,61,70,000/-. The assessee requested the A.O. to treat the original return in response to the 148 notice. Then the reopening of assessment was challenged by the assessee before jurisdictional High Court, and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee vide judgment dated 27-06-2016 in SCA No. 18512 of 2015, and upheld the validity of the reassessment notice. 2.1. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer sent notices u/s. 133(6) to the three unsecured creditors, the same were returned unserved by Postal Authorities. The assessee failed to furnish latest address of the above three concerns, therefore the AO treated the transaction as unexplained income and made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 14,17,30,000/-. The assessee also received share application money from two companies namely Rs. 75 lakhs from M/s. Ken Securities Ltd. and Rs. 15 lakhs from M/s. Winter Fresh Food Pvt. Ltd. Since the assessee could not establish identity, genuineness and creditwor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooks of accounts with complete addresses. However, the appellant did not file these evidences except the copy of ledger account as appearing in its books of accounts and copies of share application forms. Therefore, the A.O. deputed his Inspector to visit the premises of these two companies and the Inspector reported that these two companies were not available at the given addresses. The reports of the Inspector have also been reproduced in the assessment order. Thus, the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the above two companies remained unexplained by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. After considering these facts, the A.O. added the amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits in the garb of share application money." 4. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee reads as under: Technical: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reassessment in as much as the assessment is reopened on the basis of third party information and that there is no escapement of income. 1.1 The appellant says and submits that the income escaped assessment is Rs. 12,61,70,000/- as per reasons recorded but income ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessee reads as under: "08. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- as unexplained share application money under section 68 on the facts of the case." 5. Heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including Paper Book filed by the assessee. The technical grounds raised by the assessee on reopening of assessment, reasons recorded are already decided by the Jurisdictional High Court vide its judgment dated 27-06-2016 in SCA No. 18512 of 2015 which was reproduced in the Assessment order as follows: "Upon perusal of the above quoted portions of the objections of the petitioner and The Assessing Officer disposing them of, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer had nowhere abandoned reasons which were the foundation for issuance of the notice for re-opening. He had considered the objections of the petitioner and disposed them of on the basis of material on record. The sole ground of the petitioner therefore, must fail. 8. In the present case, notice for re-opening having been issued in the case of assessment which was not framed after scrutiny. The Assessing Officer would have considerable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted the inventory of the purchase and sales of gold. Further the sales are duly reflected in the sales register and the tax invoice also suffered VAT taxes. The invoice figures clearly matched with the payments received through banking channels which the Assessing Officer also reproduced at Page No. 19 to 24 in his assessment order. Since the notices sent to the parties were unserved by postal authorities, the Assessing Officer has not made any further verification investigation and proceeded based on the third party statement of Shri Pravinkumar Jain made addition of Rs. 14,17,30,000/- as unexplained addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Further the A.O. has not disputed the summary of sales and purchases made to the three parties which is reproduced hereunder: 6.3. In our considered view, the assessee has discharged his initial onus cast upon him by providing the Ledger account, Bank statements, Invoice copies, etc. Based on the same material, though the reassessment was initiated for Rs. 12,61,70,000/- as bogus accommodation entries, whereas the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 14,17,30,000/- in the reassessment order based on the business transaction. Further the ld.AO has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al also considered the fact that the similar amount received by the assessee for the relevant Assessment Year 2012-13 was not considered as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has also considered the fact that the similar issue involved in the case of M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A). [12] Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has deleted the addition of Rs. 108.97 Crores after taking into consideration the fact that the said amount is already accounted in the books of account of the respondent - assessee and therefore, such addition has rightly been deleted by the Tribunal by arriving at a finding of fact that the respondent assessee has received the said amount in the bank account which was utilized for purchase for making transaction in NSEL. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant, relying upon the observations made by the Assessing Officer in paras 8.2 to 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce was issued by the A.O. asking the assessee for the details but based on the Inspector's report on the non-existence of the companies made the addition u/s.68 of the Act. 7.1. The assessee produced before us copies of the Master Data from the Website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs which clearly shows that M/s. Ken Securities Ltd. was incorporated on 28-101994 and filed its latest balance sheet as on 31-03-2015 and last AGM held on 30-09-2015. Similarly in the case of M/s. Winter Fresh Food Pvt. Ltd. which was incorporated on 02-04-1996 filed its balance sheet as on 31-03-2023 and last AGM held on 30-032023. The assessee also produced ITR filed by M/s. Winter Fresh Food Pvt. Ltd. relating to the Asst. Year 2007-08 filed on 29-102007 as well as latest ITR for the Asst. Year 2023-24 filed on 2610-2023. The assessee also filed copy of the Audited Reports in the case of M/s. Winter Fresh Food Pvt. Ltd. wherein the investment made in M/s. Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. is reflecting in the balance sheet. Similarly in the case of M/s. Ken Securities Ltd. wherein the investment made in M/s. Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. is reflecting in the loans and advance schedule of the balance sheet. Th....