ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI vs. JAGRUTI VIJAY GORWADIA, MUMBAI

This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 14.03.2016 and it relates to A.Y. 2008-09.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 26.09.2008 declaring Nil income. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the DG, Investigation Wing, Mumbai which had conducted survey in the case of Mahasagar Group of cases managed by one Shri Mukesh Choksi who was engaged in fraudulent billing activity and providing bogus speculation profit/loss on Smt. Jagruti Vijay Gorwadia commodity trading and different kinds of accommodation entries. From the computer seized from the premises of Shri Mukesh Choksi a list of beneficiaries was extracted/taken. In the list name of the assessee was shown as a beneficiary. On the basis of the information the AO made belief for reopening of assessment. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 26.03.2013 was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice assessee furnished her reply dated 13th January, 2014 contending that the return filed on 26.09.2008 may be treated as return in response to the said notice. The assessee was completed by the AO under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The AO, on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing made addition of `1,06,11,129/- on account of income from other sources. On appeal before the CIT(A) the entire addition was deleted. Therefore, aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us.

4. We have head the learned D.R. for the Revenue and the son of the assessee who was present before us. The learned D.R. supported the order of the AO. The learned A.R. submits that the assessment was reopened on the basis of information that assessee availed accommodation entry of `1,06,11,129/-. Assessee was asked to explain as to why the addition be not made as the assessee’s name appeared in the list of beneficiaries obtained during the search action on Mukesh Choksi group. The assessee simply contended that she has not transacted with M/s. Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. The assessee failed to substantiate her contention. Therefore, the AO made the addition. The learned D.R. submitted that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate her contention. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. 56 taxmann.com 286. On the other hand, the son of the assessee contended that they haves no concern with either Shri Mukesh Choksi or with M/s. Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. They have never transacted with the entity managed by Mukesh Choksi group. The son of the assessee further contended that his mother has filed affidavit before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) that they have no concern with M/s.

Smt. Jagruti Vijay Gorwadia Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. nor have ever opened any DEMAT account with the entity managed by Mukesh Choksi. There is no transaction in their bank account with any of the concern managed by Mukesh Choksi group.

Smt. Jagruti Vijay Gorwadia on the facts of the case. I the present case the assessee has discharged is onus by filing sufficient documentary evidences in her power and possession and discharged the onus. However, in the case of Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. (supra) the AO failed to conduct any investigation.