ITO Vs Vijay Kumar Thakral (ITAT Delhi)
The appeal before the ITAT Delhi arose from the Revenue’s challenge to the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, who had set aside a reassessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The dispute related to Assessment Year 2018-19.
The assessee’s case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act on the basis of information received through the CBDT’s Risk Management Strategy indicating that the assessee had allegedly taken accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 10,08,759 from M/s Shree Bankey Bihari Enterprises. The AO noted that the assessee had declared purchases of Rs. 5,33,94,750 and profit before tax of Rs. 11,66,031. Information available with the department indicated that one Rajesh Mittal controlled several firms that allegedly issued bogus bills without supplying goods, and M/s Shree Bankey Bihari Enterprises was one such entity.
The AO issued a notice under Section 148A(b), but no reply was received. After recording reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, proceedings under Section 147 were initiated. A notice under Section 148 was issued, but the assessee did not file a return in response. Subsequently, several notices under Section 142(1), reminders, AU-1 communication, clarification letters, and multiple show cause notices were issued. According to the AO, most of these remained unanswered or were only partly replied to.
