Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 574/Mum./2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 09/09/2022
Related Assessment Year : 2012-13
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment alleging that assessee has failed to provide fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment is bad in law as details already made available to AO during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings.

Facts- On 27/03/2019, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee were initiated on the basis of information received from DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata regarding certain paper/shell companies i.e. Silverson Logistics Private Ltd and Kalyani Vincom Private Ltd, whose bank accounts were alleged to have been used merely for transaction of layering of funds and assessee being one of the beneficiaries of such a transaction.

Accordingly, AO was of the view that income totalling to Rs. 9,81,60,144 has escaped assessment, as assessee has failed to disclose truly and fully material facts. The assessee filed detailed objections against reopening of assessment, which were disposed off vide order dated 10/11/2019.

AO vide order dated 24/12/2019 passed under section 143 (3) r/w section 147 of the Act held that assessee has failed to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction with Silverson Logistics Private Ltd. Further, in respect of Kalyani Vincom Private Ltd, Assessing Officer held that the funds were transferred from the said entity to Highland Transport Private Ltd and Neelanchal Roadways Private Ltd, who had in turn transferred Rs. 1,49,62,890 and Rs. 2,77,75,322 to the assessee company. Thus, AO held the aforesaid transactions to be not genuine in absence of documents supporting the creditworthiness and genuineness of the said transaction and accordingly, added an amount of Rs. 49,08,007 by applying the gross profit rate of the assessee. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order upheld the assessment order both on jurisdiction as well as on merits. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031