| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 5089 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 148
Where AO on the basis of Investigation Report made his own enquiry and found that there was sufficient reason to believe that income of assessee had escaped assessment in so far as assessee had taken accommodation entries from the number of identities in whose case search was conducted by Department, therefore, reopening of assessment was done by AO after properly recording the reasons and following due procedure of law.
|
Reassessment - Validity - Bogus purchases -
Assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Jewellery and Semi-Precious Stones. AO got information from Investigation Wing to the effect that assessee was one of beneficiary who have obtained accommodation entries from the concerns operated by three groups. AO found purchases from these concerns to be bogus, accordingly, assessments were reopened by issuance of notice under section 148. AO issues show cause notice as to why purchases made from these concerns should not be treated as bogus in so far as assessee had primary facts in his knowledge and onus lies on him to prove the purchases claimed by him were genuine and fully and exclusively for business purposes. Held: AO on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing regarding assessee's obtaining accommodation bills of purchases etc. from the entry providers without physically taking in the possession of goods, made inquiry and then reopened the assessment after duly recording the reasons to believe that there was escapement of income. AO on basis of Investigation Report made his own enquiry and found that there was sufficient reason to believe that income of assessee had escaped assessment in so far as assessee had taken accommodation entries from the number of identities in whose case search was conducted by Department wherein it was admitted by him that he was in business of providing accommodation entries. Therefore, reopening of assessment was done by AO after properly recording the reasons and following due procedure of law.
REFERRED : Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 0348 (SC) Amit Polyprints (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 393 (Guj) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6782 (Guj-HC) CIT v. M/s. Garment Crafts and others (2016) 68 taxmann.com 222 (Raj) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1935 (Raj-HC) CIT v. Vaibhav Gems Ltd. (2014) 112 DTR 84 (Raj) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 4691 (Raj-HC) Sanjay Oil Cake Industries v. CIT (2008) 10 DTR 153 (Guj) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 0370 (Guj-HC) Rameshwar Lal Mali v. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 536 (Raj) : 2002 TaxPub(DT) 1162 (Raj-HC)
FAVOUR : Against the assessee
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|