M/s. Intime Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1726/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91488 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. N O. 1726/DEL/2012 A.Y . : 2001 - 02 M/S INTIME CREDIT & HOLDING S PVT. LTD., 101, AMAN CHAMBER, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110 060 (PAN: AAAC12890K) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(4) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S H. SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV. & SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 27 - 7 - 201 5 DATE OF ORDER : 27 - 7 - 201 5 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS A PPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13 . 2 .201 2 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - X V , NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1 - 0 2 . 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED : - 1. THAT THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS.5,85,260/ - AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 5,450/ - . ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 2 2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE INITIATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND, FURTHER COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE STATUTORY PRE - CONDITIONS FOR INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND, COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ACT. 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIT (INVESTIGATION) MECHANICALLY AND WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND. IN DOING SO, HE OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT, THERE WAS NO BASIS/ MATERIAL TO ALLEGE OR ASSUME THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND AS SUCH NOTICE ISSUE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS ENTIRELY MISCONCEIVED, MISPLACED AND, UNSUSTAINABLE. 3 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN OVER LOOKING THE BASIC FACT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,78,365/ - COMPRISING OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THREE PARTIES NAMELY MLS KANODIA AGENCY, SH. DINANATH LUHARIWALA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. AND MLS ASHISH INVESTMENTS DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ULS 68 OF ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 3 THE ACT WAS WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, AS THE SAME WAS RECEIVED AGAINST THE REPAYMENT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS TO THESE PARTIES BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND AS SUCH, THE ALLEGATION OF THE LEARNED ITO THA T APPELLANT COMPANY HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, HAS NO LEGS TO STAND AND SHOULD BE DELETED, AS SUCH. 3.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILED EXPLANATION, INFORMATION'S AND EVIDENCES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE LOANS GIVEN AND RECEIVED BACK, WHICH WAS ALL ARBITRARILY BRUSHED ASIDE (WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY ENQUIRY OR I NVESTIGATION) ON THE BASIS OF MERE CONJECTURES, SURMISES AND SUSPICION AND THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT EVEN MADE A WHISPER OF SUCH DOCUMENTS IN HIS ORDER AND AS SUCH SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY SO LEVIED IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND UNTENABLE AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 19 . 6 .200 1 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 5,450/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS I.T. ACT ) ON 27.2.2003. IN THIS CASE AN ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 4 INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM CERTAIN ENTRY OPERATORS AND HAS INTRODUCED A SUM OF RS. 5,78,365/ - , CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR THE REASONS FOR REOPENING AND THE SAME WERE PROVIDED TO THEM BY THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 9.7.2008, IN THIS LETTER IT WAS SPECIFICALLY INFORMED THAT OBJECTIONS IF ANY FOR REOPENING MAY BE COMMUNICATED WITHIN 7 DAYS, FAILING WHICH IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION FOR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPONDED TO THIS LETTER. LATER IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 31.3.2007 AND LATER ON 18.8.2008 THEN 29.8.2008 THE ASSESSEE STARTED APPEARING IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143 OF THE I.T. ACT READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 26.12.2008 AND HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,78,365/ - IS A BOGUS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND MADE AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1 3 . 2 .201 2 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 5 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDE R AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW ON FILE WHICH DESERVE TO BE CANCELLED. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, HE DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE THE REASONS RECORDED U/S. 148(2) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HE STATED THAT DEPARTMENT DOES NOT POSSESS ANY INFORMATION WHICH MAY HAVE PROVIDED FOUNDATION FOR BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED. THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED FULL AND TRUE ACCOUNT OF ITS INCOME AND ALL RELEVANT DOCUMEN TS HAVE BEEN ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 31.3.2008 WAS UNEXPECTEDLY ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AFTER A LAPSE OF 7 YEARS, THE DATE OF FILING OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN A LETTER STATING THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE U/S. 148 AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE REASONS RECORDED VIDE LETTER DATED 29.8.2008 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 15 TO 19. HE STATED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE SPECIAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) - I, NEW DELHI IN WHICH IT WAS ALLEGED THAT ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 6 ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS. 5,78,365/ - . HE FURTHER STATED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REOPENED IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX H AS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, BUT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME. THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF ANY FACT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE. HE NCE, THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WHICH COULD GIVE ANY COGENT REASONS TO FORM SUCH A BELIEF. SECONDLY, HE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON WHO ALLEGED LY TO HAVE CONFESSED THAT HE PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN CASE THERE IS ANY ST ATEMENT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THAT PERSON, IN SPITE OF THE REQUEST DATED 29.8.2008 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.1 FINALLY, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SIGNATURE HOTELS P. LTD. VS. ITO [2011] 338 ITR 51 (DELHI) . TO SUPPO RT HIS CONTENTION, H E HAS FILED A SMALL PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 38 HAVING THE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT, DELHI PASSED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: - ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 7 I) MRS. KAUSHALYA GUPTA VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 2235/DEL/2013. II) LAUREATE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1945/DEL/2012 III) ITO VS. SMT. ARTI KHATTAR IN ITA NO. 2395/DEL/2012 IV) M/S RKG INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 101/DEL/2013. V) DCIT VS. INTERNATIONAL CREDITS LTD. IN ITA NO. 2027/DEL/2012 VI) ACIT VS. GULSHAN POLYOLS LTD. IN ITA NO. 1644/DEL/2012 6. 2 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS , SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE CASE LAW S CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ARGUED ON T HE LEGAL ISSUE MENTIONED IN GROUND NO. 2 REPRODUCED ABOVE . TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE , W E HAVE PERUSED THE REASONS RECORDED U/S. 148(2) FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO. 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 8 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19 / 06/20 01 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,450/ - . 2. CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE DIRECTORATE INCOME - T AX (INVESTIGATION) - I, NE W DELHI IN RESPECT OF THE B OGUS/ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS/COMPANIES. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FIGURES AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THESE ALLEGED BOGUS TRANSACTIONS GIVEN BY THE DIRECTORATE AFTER MAKING THE NECESSARY EN QUIRES. THE NAME AND OTHER PARTICULARS OF THE ABOVE SAID ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - NAME OF THE ASSESSEE / BENEFICIA RIES NAME OF THE BANK OF BENEFICI ARY NAME OF THE OPERATOR INSTRUMENT NO. OPERATO R S A/C NO. AND BANK. DATE OF ENTRY AMOUNT (IN RS.) M/S INTIME CREDIT & HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. KANODIA AGENCY 22879 4, INNOVATI VE WAZIRPU R, DELHI 20.2.2001 60,000 - DO - ASHISH INVESTMENT 33737 - DO - 25.2.2001 68,365 - DO - DINANATH LUHARIWALA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. 7473 120021 7, INNOVATI VE WAZIRPU R, DELHI 20.2.2001 4,50,000 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIE VE THAT THE INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.5,78,365 / - ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 9 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE LT. ACT, 1961. 4. SINCE, THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS HAVE LAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R, NO NOTICE U/S 148 SHALL BE ISSUED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER. [REFERENCE IS INVITED TO THE SECTION 151(2) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 ] . 5. SUBMITTED FOR KIND PERUSAL AND NECESSARY APPROVAL FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U / S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. A PROFORMA FOR OBTAININ G T HE APPROVAL IS ENCLOSED. SD/ - (C.M. MEENA) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 11(4), NEW DELHI 7.1 IN RESPONSE TO THE REASONS RECORDED, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY DATED 29.8.2008 TO THE ITO, WARD - 11(4), NEW DELHI IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS UNEXPECTEDLY ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 31.3.2008 ON THE LAST DA TE WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS WERE GETTING TIME BARRED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 , AFTER A LAPSE OF NEARLY 7 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN I.E. 19.6.2001. ASSESSEE FURTHER OBJECTED FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF T HE SPECIAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INV. - I), NEW DELHI IN WHICH IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS. 5,78,365/ - . ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 10 7.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE REASONS RECORDED U/S. 148(2) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148(1) OF THE I.T. ACT AS WELL AS THE REPLIES/OBJECTIONS DATED 29.8.2008 TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE LAW. THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND , AO HAD MECHANICALLY ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE LD. DIT(INV.) - I, NEW DELHI. EV EN OTHERWISE, THE AO HA D ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF TENABLE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND RECORDING OF REQUISITE SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SECONDLY, AO AS WELL A S LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE OBJECTION WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME WHICH HE NEVER RESPONDED AND THUS THE A SSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM AND THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE WERE ADHERED TO. THE FINDING O F THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REPLY/OBJECTION DATED 29.8.2008 TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ALSO REQUESTED F OR SUPPLY OF STATEMENTS OF ANY PARTY RECORDED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN USED. THE ASSESEEE HAS ALSO REQUESTED TO THE AO TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION THAT PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS HAS BEEN RECORDED AND USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT PROVIDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CHANCE TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT PERSONS. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 ARE ILLEGAL. TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION, WE DRAW SU PPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - I) UNITED ELECTRICAL CO. (P) LTD. VS. CIT & OTHERS (2002) 178 CTR (DEL) 192. ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 11 II) CHUHARMAL VS. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 III) CBI VS. VC SHUKLA & OTHERS (1998) 3 SCC 410. IV) NR PAPER & BOARD LTD. VS. DCIT (1998) 234 I TR 733 (GUJ) (V) PRARTHANA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (2001) 70 TTJ (AHMD.) 122. 7.3 WE FIND THAT A S REGARDS THE EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL RELATING TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERA TED THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND RECORDING OF REQUISITE SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS WELL AS AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH ORDER DATED 21 . 7 .20 11 PASSED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIGNATURE HOTELS P. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [2011] 338 ITR 0051 , WHEREIN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD MATTER AS UNDER: - HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVEST IGATION) THAT THE PETITIONER HAD INTRODUCED MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 LACS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 - 03 AS STATED IN THE ANNEXURE. ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM A COMPANY, S, WAS NOTHING BUT AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND THE ASS ESEE WAS ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 12 THE BENEFICIARY. THE REASONS DID NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO ANY DOCUMENT OR STATEMENT, EXCEPT THE ANNEXURE. THE ANNEXURE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE THAT PRIMA FACIE SH OWED OR ESTABLISHED NEXUS OR LINK WHICH DISCLOSED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE ANNEXURE WAS NOT A POINTER AND DID NOT INDICATE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS OWN MIND TO THE INFORMATION AND EXAMINE THE BASIS AND MA TERIAL OF THE INFORMATION. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT THE COMPANY, S, HAD A PAID - UP CAPITAL OF RS. 90 LAKHS AND WAS INCORPORATED ON JANUARY 4, 1989, AND WAS ALSO ALLOTTED A PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER IN SEPTEMBER, 2001. THUS, IT COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE A F ICTITIOUS PERSON. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT VALID AND WERE LLIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 7. 4 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ABOVE ISSUE IS EXACTLY THE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI . HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENT, WE DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE ITA NO. 1726/ DEL/ 2012 13 REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT . THE OTHER ISSUES ARE NOT DEALT WITH AS THE SAME HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 27 / 7 /20 1 5 . SD/ - SD/ - [ J.S. REDDY ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 27/ 7 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES