JYOTSNA SUKUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ORDER Both these appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi, dated 30.3.2015 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2009-10.

“ As requested, the reasons for re-opening the case are reproduced as under:- “ An information has been received from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi through ITO, Ward-32(2), New Delhi that Ms Jyotsna Sukumar, Prop., Bureau of International Conference Services (PAN – AMHPS4797H) has taken accommodation entry in the form of unsecured loan amounting to Rs.5,25,000/- from following parties during the A.Y. 2006-07: i) Vineet Bansal Rs.1,25,000/- ii) Anurag Bansal Rs.2,00,000/- iii) Bansal Inhold Ltd. Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.5,25,000/- The information so received has gone through and considered by me. Accordingly, I have reason to believe that the amount of Rs.5,25,000/- has escaped assessment during the F.Y. 2005-2006 relevant to the A.Y. 2006-2007 within the meaning of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2

Your case is fixed for hearing o 01.11.2012.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- (S.P. BAXLA) Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(4), New Delhi.”

“12. In the present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10th February 2003, from four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO stated: “I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own http://www.itatonline.org Page 7 of 8 unaccounted money in its bank account by way of above accommodation entries.” The above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied his mind to the materials that he talks about particularly since he did not describe what those materials were. Once the date on which the so called accommodation entries were provided is known, it would not have been difficult for the AO, if he had in fact undertaken the exercise, to make a reference to the manner in which those very entries were provided in the accounts of the Assessee, which must have been tendered along with the return, which was filed on 14th November 2004 and was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for the AO to have simply concluded: “it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money 3 in its bank by way of accommodation entries”. In the considered view of the Court, in light of the law explained with sufficient clarity by the Supreme Court in the decisions discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.”

The order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2015.