Sungrow Impex Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: CIT had recorded his satisfaction for reopening of the assessment in a most mechanical manner without considering even the assessment records or the return of income filed by assessee and his satisfaction appeared to be in a ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful. Therefore, such approval under section 151 was totally without application of mind and as such the satisfaction could not be said to be valid in the eyes of Law. Thus, addition on account of unaccounted share application money and commission paid was deleted.
Held: Assessee company had filed its return of income declaring NIL income, which was processed under section 143(1). Subsequently, an information was received from CIT. The information stated that Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta, CA had provided accommodation entries to several beneficiaries after taking unaccounted cash from the beneficiaries which was routed through different entities by layering of accounts. All these entities were controlled by Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta who had stated on oath during search proceedings as well as during assessment proceedings that cash and other unexplained deposits in the bank accounts controlled by him belong to the beneficiaries and should be taxed in their hands. It was held that Pr.CIT had recorded his satisfaction for reopening of the assessment in a most mechanical manner without considering even the assessment records or the return of income filed by assessee and his satisfaction appeared to be in a ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful. Therefore, such approval under section 151 was totally without application of mind and as such the satisfaction could not be said to be valid in the eyes of Law. The reassessment order, thus, passed was also invalid and bad in Law. In view of the above, the reopening of the assessment was quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi, Dated 01.04.2019, for the A.Y. 2010-2011, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, addition of Rs.95 lakhs as share application money under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and addition of Rs.1,90,000/- on account of commission paid.
2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee company filed its return of income on 25.09.2010 declaring NIL income, which was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, an information was received from CIT, Central-2, Delhi, Dated 15.03.2012. The information stated that Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta, C.A. had provided accommodation entries to several beneficiaries after taking unaccounted cash from the beneficiaries which was routed through different entities by layering of accounts. All these entities were controlled by Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta who has stated on oath during search proceedings as well as during assessment proceedings that cash and other unexplained deposits in the bank accounts controlled by him belong to the beneficiaries and should be taxed in their hands. In his statement on oath he has specifically provided the names of such entities used to provide accommodation entries and as per information assessee-company has received the following amounts.
