M/s. Hasanpur Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6299/DEL/2015 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 629920114 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AABCH0861N
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 6299/DEL/2015
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Hasanpur Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC 2
Tribunal Order Date 05-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 18-08-2016
Next Hearing Date 18-08-2016
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 27-11-2015
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6299 /DEL/20 15 A.Y. : 200 5 - 0 6 M/S HASANPUR COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. 306 RG COMPLEX SECTOR-8 ROHINI DELHI 110 085 (PAN:AABCH0861N) VS. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S HRI VED JAIN ADV. & SH. PRANJAL SRIVASTAV ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : 18 1818 18- -- -0 00 08 88 8- -- -201 201 201 2016 66 6 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 05 0505 05- -- -10 1010 10- -- -201 201 201 2016 66 6 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED WI TH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 28.9.2015 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CIT(A)] IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON THE FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONF IRMING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 14 8 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AS THE CONDITION AND 2 PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE HAVE NOT BEE N SATISFIED AND COMPLIED WITH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER P ASSED BY A.O AS THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE LEARN ED A.O. ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AS THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE I SSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONF IRMING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 14 8 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF TH E ACT IS BAD IN THE EYE OF THE LAW. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING TH E ORDER OF THE AO REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE R EASON RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE BAD IN LAW AND AS SUCH THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL AND LIABLE T O BE QUASHED SO. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 147 IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE SAME H AS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE ULS 148 OF THE ACT. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE 3 ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 147/144 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT 1961 HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING ASSESSEE A N OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WHICH IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PRIN CIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIV ED FROM MIS TAURUS IRON & STEEL CO. PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING RS 10 0 0 000/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. (II) THAT THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRM ED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT ALL MATERIAL EVIDENC ES ON RECORD TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHA REHOLDERS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. (III) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE SAID ADDITION HAVING BEEN MADE WITHO UT THERE BEING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION OF RS.2 36 026 ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENSE. 10. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION TO RS.3 80 2401- FROM RS.2 36 026/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARD AGRICULTURE EXPENSE. 4 (II) THAT THE ABOVE SAID ENHANCEMENT HAS BEEN MADE ARBITRARILY REJECTING THE DETAILED EXPLANATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ENHANCING THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE AO. (II) THAT THE ENHANCEMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARN ED CIT(A) IS WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE A CT IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUESTIONED. (III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L EARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS POWER OF ENHANCEMENT U/S 251 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 12. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR ALT ER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2005 DECLARING INCOME NIL AND THE SAME W AS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. SUBSEQUENTLY PROCEEDINGS U/ S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT WERE INITIATED BY RECORDING REASONS ON THE BASIS OF INFO RMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT VIDE LETTER DA TED 31.3.2009 FROM ADDL. DIT (INV.) UNIT-IV NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A BENEFICIARY OF TAKING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS. 10 00 000/- IN THE GARB OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY/SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE PREMIUM FROM M/S TAURUS I RON & STEEL CO. PVT. LTD. AN ENTITY OF SHRL TARUN GOYAL AN ENTRY PROVIDER AS UNVEILED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 14 8 WAS ISSUED BY AO ON 26.03.2012 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS U/S 147 OF T HE ACT. HOWEVER NO RETURN 5 OF INCOME WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THEREFORE NOTICES U/S 142(1) DATED 17.09.2012 & 11.10.2012 WERE ISSUE D AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. A FINAL S HOW CAUSE NOTICE/QUESTIONNAIRE U/S 142(1) DATED 04.02.2013 WA S ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY SPEED POST AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH AR OF ASSES SEE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY DETAILS WERE FILED BY AS SESSEE RAISING MANY OBJECTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICES AND ALSO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER AO CONSIDERE D THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE ALONG WITH DETAILS FILED AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME ASSESSEE FILED THE AP PEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.9.2015 PARTLY ALLO WED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 28.9.2 015 THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONT ENTION RAISED IN ITS APPEAL WHEREIN HE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS BA D IN THE EYE OF LAW AS THE CONDITION AND PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATU TE HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED AND COMPLIED WITH. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CI T(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO REJECTING THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASON RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE BAD IN LAW AND AS SUCH THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL AND LIABLE T O BE QUASHED SO; THE ORDER U/S. 147 IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT; THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS PASSED WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF INFORMATION ALREADY ON RECO RD REASONS OF SATISFACTION 6 RECORDED FOR REOPENING AND THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY A.O. ARE ALL NOT CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED OBLIGATIONS AND FILED ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS CONF IRMATIONS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE SATISFAC TION UNDER SECTION 148 PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING ACCEP TED THOSE CONFIRMATION AND INFORMATION IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION HE REFERRED THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS OF THE DELHI HIGH CO URT BY WHICH THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED INCLUDING THE CASE OF SIGNATURE HOTEL PVT. LTD. (2011) 338 ITR 51. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE ITAT C BENCH DELHI IN WHICH ON THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI GOVIND KRIPA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS VS. ITO PASSED IN ITA NO. 304/DEL/2013 (AY 2008-09) VIDE ORDER DAT ED 19.12.2014 IN WHICH HOTEL SIGNATURES PVT. LTD. DECISION (SUPRA) WAS FOL LOWED. LATER THE DEPARTMENT WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 486/2015 IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SH. GOVIND KRIPA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. WHI CH WAS DISMISSED ON 4.8.2015 BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. HENCE HE REQU ESTED THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE QUASHED. 6. IN THIS CASE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO BOTH THE PARTIES IN SPITE OF THE SAME NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE NOR FI LED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND A GAIN TO THE REVENUE THEREFORE I AM DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPART E QUA REVENUE AFTER HEARING THE LD. AR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 7 7. I HAVE HEARD LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND P ERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED THE REASONS FOR BELI EF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS UNDER THE SAME IS ATTACHED WITH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 17 & 18. M/S HASANPUR COLD STORAGE PVT LTD. AY 2005 M/S HASANPUR COLD STORAGE PVT LTD. AY 2005 M/S HASANPUR COLD STORAGE PVT LTD. AY 2005 M/S HASANPUR COLD STORAGE PVT LTD. AY 2005- -- -06 0606 06 A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF SH. TARUN GOYAL CA. THE ADDL. D IT(INV.) UNIT-IV AFTER CONDUCTING THE DETAILED ENQUIRIES AND ANALYZING THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SEIZED F ROM THE PREMISES HAS REPORTED TO THE CIT DELHI IV VIDE ITS LETTER NO. ADDL. DIT (INV.)/UNIT-IV/BENEFICIARIES /2008-09/392 DATED 31.3.2009. THE REPORT IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE B. TH E MAIN GIST REPORT ARE AS UNDER:- 1. SH. TARUN GOYAL HAS FORMED CERTAIN FIRMS/ COMPANIES FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. ALL THESE COMPANIE S ARE OPERATING FROM 13/34 WEA KAROL BAGH OR 203 DHAKA CHAMBER NAIWALA KAROL BAGH. 2. VARIOUS BANK A/C HAS BEEN OPENED IN THE NAME OF THE SE COMPANIES WITH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES WHICH ARE EMPLOYEES OF SH. TARUN GOYAL. 3. HUGE CASH WAS FOUND DEPOSITED IN THESE BANK ACCOUNT S. 4. SH. TARUN GOYAL IS USING SUCH CONCERNS FOR GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES AFTE R RECEIVING CASH FROM SUCH BENEFICIARIES IN LIEU OF A CERTAIN COMMISSION. 8 5. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS ON 15.9.2008 SH. TARUN GOYAL IN HIS STATEMENT HAS ACCEPTED ALL THE F ACTS MENTIONED ABOVE. 6. M/S TARUN IRON & STEEL COMPANY PVT. LTD. IS ONE OF SUCH CONCERN USED BY SH. TARUN GOYAL FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE ADDL. DIT (INV.) HAS ALSO FORWARDED THE DETAILED LIST OF THE BENEFICIARIES WH O HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY DURING FY 03-04 TO 200 8- 09. M/S HASANPUR COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. (AABCH0861N) IS ONE SUCH CONCERN WHO HAS RECEIVED RS. 10 00 000/- F ROM THE ENTRY PROVIDER M/S TAURUS IRON & STEEL COMPANY PVT. LTD. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION REPOR T THE LENDERS IN THESE CASES HAVE BEEN PROVED TO BE MEN/P ARTIES OF NO CREDITWORTHINESS. THE STATEMENTS ON OATH AND THE LETTERS OF ADMISSION CLEARLY SHOW THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS A RE NON GENUINE. THEREFORE THE AFORESAID CREDIT ENTRIES A RE SQUARELY HIT BY SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. CREDIT OF RS. 10 00 000/- IS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. THE LOW COST A DUTY ON THE ASSESSE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF PARTY GIVING SUCH CREDIT OF RS . 10 00 000/-. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED T HE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAS GIVEN THIS SHARE CAP ITAL/ SHARE PREMIUM / SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME BUT THE ENTRY PROVIDERS HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED T HAT THEY HAD PROVIDED SHARE CAPITAL/ SHARE PREMIUM/ SHARE APPLIC ATION 9 MONEY AFTER RECEIVING CASH FROM THE BENEFICIARIES. THE CATEGORICAL ADMISSION OF THE ENTRY PROVIDER AS WEL L AS THE FINANCE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY POINTS OU T THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE N OT GENUINE. I THEREFORE HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 10 00 000/- REPRESENTS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESS MENT FOR AY 2005-06. THE NECESSARY APPROVAL U/S. 151(2) MAY KINDLY BE ACCORDED FOR ISSUE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR AY 05-06. 16.1 I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSION S OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PR ESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THAT OF CASE OF SHRI GOVIND KRIPA BUI LDERS AND PROMOTERS VS. ITO DECIDED BY THE C BENCH ITAT NEW DELHI IN ITA NO . 304/DEL/2013 (AY 2008-09) VIDE ORDER DATED 19.12.2014 (IN WHICH ONE OF THE JUDICIAL MEMBER WAS THE PARTY) WHEREIN THE HOTEL SIGNATURES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS FOLLOWED. AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2014 OF THE TRIBUNAL THE DEPARTMENT WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 486/2015 IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SH. GOV IND KRIPA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 04.8.2015 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 3. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ITAT HAS IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER DATED 19 TH DECEMBER 2014 PASSED IN ITA NO. 304/DEL/2013 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT O F THIS COURT IN SIGNATURE HOTELS P. LTD. VS. ITO [2011] 3 38 ITR 51 10 (DELHI) AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AO DID NOT APPLY HIS OWN MIND TO THE INFORMATION AND THE MATERIALS F ORMING THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION. 4. THE COURT FINDS NO LEGAL ERROR WHATSOEVER IN TH E ITAT COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE PRESENT CASE NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COURT. 16.2 I ALSO FIND THAT THESE REASONS MERELY BASED O N INVESTIGATION WING INFORMATION WITHOUT SURVEILLANCE OF SUBSTANTIATION AND WITHOUT ANY STATEMENT BEING MENTIONED THEREIN AND WITHOUT NATURE OF TRANS ACTION BEING NARRATED THEREIN AND WITHOUT TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND FURTHER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND ON AMOUNT OF INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT SHOWS THAT THE REOPE NING IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 16.3 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED T HAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND R ECORDING OF REQUISITE SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH UNDISCLOSED INC OME. AFTER HEARING LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS WELL AS AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH ORDER DATED 21.7.2011 PASSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F SIGNATURE HOTELS P. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [2011] 338 ITR 0051 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD MATTER AS UNDER:- 11 HELD ALLOWING THE PETITION THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATI ON RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGA TION) 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 F ROM A COMPANY S WAS NOTHING BUT AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND THE ASSESEE WAS THE BENEFICIARY. THE REASONS DID N OT 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 SHOWED OR EST ABLISHED NEXUS OR LINK WHICH DISCLOSED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME . THE ANNEXURE WAS NOT A POINTER AND DID NOT INDICATE ESC APEMENT OF INCOME. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS OWN MIND TO THE INFORMATION AND EXAMINE THE BASIS A ND MATERIAL OF THE INFORMATION. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT THE COMPANY S HAD A PAID-UP CAPITAL OF RS. 90 LAKHS A ND WAS INCORPORATED ON JANUARY 4 1989 AND WAS ALSO ALLOT TED A PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER IN SEPTEMBER 2001. THUS IT COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE A FICTITIOUS PERSON. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT VALID AND WERE LI ABLE TO BE QUASHED. 17. IN VIEW OF ABOVE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT ABOVE ISSUE IS EXACTLY THE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL AND IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI DELIVERED IN HOTEL SIGNATURES LTD. (SUPRA). HENCE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE ABOVE PRECEDENT I 12 DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. THE OTHER ISSUES ARE NOT DEALT WITH AS THE SAME HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 18. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/10/2016 SD/- [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 05/10/2016 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES