“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (329 ITR 110), cited in 217 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court

217

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani

69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported

142

citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT

394 ITR 146 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 cannot be initiated by the Assessing Officer based on borrowed satisfaction, vague information from the Investigation Wing, or incorrect jurisdictional facts without independent application of mind. Reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, especially where an original assessment was completed under section 143(3), requires specific conditions relating to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

PCIT v. M/s. Kesoram Industries 57

417 ITR 334 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment completed under Section 143(3) cannot be reopened after four years solely based on third-party information or opinions, such as from an Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer applying their own independent mind to the material and having new, independent material on record.

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

224 ITR 362 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Information received from the investigation wing constitutes valid 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, provided the Assessing Officer applies their mind to the material and does not act mechanically. Prompt issuance of a notice based on such information does not automatically imply a lack of due diligence or borrowed satisfaction.

AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner

197 Taxmann 177 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

A reassessment under Section 147/148 is valid if initiated based on specific, non-vague information, even from an investigation wing, provided the Assessing Officer applies independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment.

56 (Guj.) (para 6) v. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

83 Taxmann.com 82 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Information received from the Investigation Wing, identifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries through share application from a third party, constitutes valid tangible material and 'reasons to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

91 Taxmann.com 119 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is justified in reopening assessment proceedings based on information received from the Investigation Wing, even when recording findings also rely on documents already on record, provided all procedural requirements for reassessment are met.

Judgments citing investigation wing

Sh. Chet Ram Naresh Kumar, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle- III, Ludhiana

In the result, appeals i.e

ITA 366/ASR/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Sh. O.P.Meena

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)

Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee. 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out on dated 24.10.2007 by the Investigation Wing of the Revenue Department and during which, certain incriminating documents were found and seized. Consequently, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued. In reply

ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Fgb Manufacturing Co., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6314/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak

Section 133(6)Section 147

July 2010, declaring total 2 M/s. FGB Manufacturing Co. income of ` 2,14,799. On the basis of information received from the Investigation wing of the Department as well as the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, indicating that purchases worth ` 11,15,571, claimed to have been made during

M/S. Purva Metal Sections Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1197/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 68

without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He submitted that the assessing officer has collected certain details from Investigation wing, Kolkatta and formed the view that the various share applicants are shell companies. The AO has fully relied upon the information supplied by the investigation wing, which, inter alia, contained

Tara Alloys Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5407/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Nippun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Kharag Singh Singhee (Since Deceased) (Rep.by Basant Kr.Singhee, Legal Heir), Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T. (OSD) Circle-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] I.T.A. No. 1542/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kharag Singh Singhee (Since Deceased)......................................…………………………Appellant (Rep. By Basant Kr. Singhee, Legal Heir) 9/12, 2Nd Floor, Mercantile Building, Lal Bazar Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Akqps 7038 C] Vs Jcit (Osd) Circle 9(1) Kolkata...................................................................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069.] Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2019 Order

Section 12ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

deduction claimed by the assessee was denied by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the allegations contained in the report of the Investigation Wing of Kolkata that the said donations were bogus. The reasons stated therein, in short, were that statements of some key persons of these two donee ... various amounts donated to these two institutions. We note that in the statements, of key persons and alleged brokers recorded by the Investigation Wing in course of survey proceedings, in their cases and the extracts of which was provided to the assessee in the show cause notice, the name

ITO - 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. United Asphalters Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5725/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5725/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) I.T.O. 13(1) (2), 2Nd Floor, United Asphalters Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Room No. 225, Aaykar 3A/6 Majithia Nagar, S.V.Road, Kandivali (W), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Mumbai-400067. 400025. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacu4547K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Dhaval Shah, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.12.2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21 In Short Referred As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, Mumbai, Dated 29/06/2018 For Assessment Year (In Short Ay) 2009-10, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty A.Y 2009-10 M/S. Unitd Asphalters P.Ltd . Order Passed U/S 271 (1) (C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’) By Deleting The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed RizwanFor Respondent: Shri Dhaval Shah, AR

Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

income of Rs. 15,53,320/- which was processed/ accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently information received from sales tax department and Investigation Wing, Mumbai informing that assessee has made purchases from Hawala entry providers. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened, the reassessment was completed vide order dated

Devki Nandan Bindal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4271/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

Director of Income Tax Gurugram. A search action in the case of M/s. Spaze Group, Gurugram was carried-out by the Investigation Wing, Gurugram. During the course of such proceeding, statement of Sh. Kishori Sharan Goel was recorded on oath. The Investigation report, statement and other details were perused, examined ... treated as his income from undisclosed source. No reply have been filed by the assessee. The A.O. on the basis of the report of Investigation Wing and statement of Shri Kishori Sharan Goel found that M/s. JMD International was 5 ITA.No.4271/Del./2019 Shri Devki Nandan Bindal, Delhi. running only

Sd Polyfilms Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4034/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

applied his mind to the information received independently. • AO has validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 148. • That no back material like seized material authenticated copy, investigation wing report details vis a vis assessee, and statements etc. if any recorded by investigation wing, was lawfully confronted to assessee thus invalidating entire reopening ... represent unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act in books of a/c of the assessee. 3.6 A careful examination/analysis of the report received from Investigation Wing, New Delhi, data of transactions and verification of ITR lead to an irresistible conclusion that the assessee company has taken accommodation entry at least

Heat Flown Electricals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3692/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. PranshuFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Printman Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Chopra, CA & Sh. DineshFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act) was done initially in this case. Subsequently, on receiving information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had received accommodation entries from individuals, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2010. The assessment was then completed u/s. 143(3)/147 ... issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had tangible material in the form of information received from the Investigation Wing. The Assessing Officer did not proceed to any hearsay, conjecture or surmises. He only filed the case laws on the merits of the case

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jainex Fire & Safety Systems P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7148/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Pawan Singh ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reopened u/s 147 after recording reasons, by issue of notice u/s 148. The case was reopened on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the department that certain traders were indulged in providing accommodation bills without actual delivery of 3 ITA 7148-7150/Mum/2018- M/s Jainex Fire

ACIT 27 (1), Mumbai vs. Ajit Prhlad Yelmar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6875/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6875/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Ajit Prahlad Yelmar Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Block No.5137, Bldg No.157, Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Near Tilak Nagar, Chembur, बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Mumbai Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaapy0329G अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 147

appellant is a company engaged in the business of trading. Ld. AO made the addition on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of Income Tax Department, Mumbai that the Sales Tax Department had recorded the statements of certain hawala operators who had confirmed to have given bogus ... supporting documentary evidence to establish that the purchase was actually made by them from these parties such as transportation documents, inward register etc. The investigation Wing of Mumbai had provided a list of hawala bill racketeers who were involved in issuing bills and also the list of beneficiaries. The Sales

Neelam Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 2689/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 2689/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Neelam Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-36(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 85 (Pan: Afkpa9328J) (Assessee) (Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

Polyprints (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT Gujarat High Court [2018] 94 taxmann.com 393 (Gujarat) Where reassessment proceedings were initiated on basis of information received from Investigation wing that assessee had received certain amount from shell companies working as an accommodation entry provider, reassessment could not be held unjustified. 8. Aaspas Multimedia ... recording the reasons and after obtaining approval from the JCIT and the PCIT on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry of bogus long-term capital gain. The reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer

Veena B Jain, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward -6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.404/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Veena B. Jain, The Income Tax Officer No.2/2A, Demellows Road, Non-Corporate Ward-6(4) Nmz Complex, 1St Floor, Vs. Chennai – 600 034 Choolai, Chennai – 600 112 [Pan: Aafpv3231P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Kumar C.AFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s.Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Kirtikumar D. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 7200/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm

Section 143(3)

assessee is engaged in business of manufacturing, import, export and trading of cut and polished and rough diamonds. The A.O. got information from the Investigation Wing of the Department KirtiKumar D. Shah Vs ACIT regarding assessee having obtaining accommodation bill with regard to purchases of diamonds. Accordingly, the case

Kirtikumar D. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 7198/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm

Section 143(3)

Arun Kumar Dalmia HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6546/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Arun Kumar Dalmia Huf Income Tax Officer-12(3)(4), 1010, Maker Chambers V, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. 400021. Pan No. Aaeha0173J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Kolkata and who were involved in giving accommodation entries of various nature to several beneficiaries including the assessee. The information supplied by the Investigation Wing to the Assessing Officer formed a prima facie basis to enable the Assessing Officer to form a belief of income chargeable to tax having escaped ... assessment. The Assessing Officer perused the information supplied by the Investigation Wing and having formed the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, could not be stated to have acted mechanically. Further, the mere fact that the assessee had asked for certain information from the Assessing Officer, which

Ratnagiri Stainless P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6011/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Ito 5(3)(1), Mumbai. Ltd., Office No. 8, 4Th Floor, Vs. 245/247, Alankar Cinema Building S V P Road, Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aadcr2993P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

about certain companies having bank M/s Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. entries of various nature to several beneficiaries including the assessee. The information supplied by the Investigation Wing to the Assessing Officer formed a prima facie basis to enable the Assessing Officer to form a belief of income chargeable to tax having ... escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer perused the information supplied by the Investigation Wing and having formed the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, could not be stated to have acted mechanically. Further, the mere fact that the assessee had asked for certain information from the Assessing Officer

M/S. Era Advertising & Marketing Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3050/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153A

153A of IT Act 1961 was issued to the assessee on 25- 2-2008. 1.1.Background of the case . While conducting discreet inquiries, the investigation wing gathered that Shri S.K.Gupta a Chartered Account by profession, is running various companies from a premises of "Trump and Gates" situated ... firm namely M/s Gupta & Rakesh Associates at 231, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi. In the course of the search operation, it was reported by the investigation wing that a large number of companies ITA No. 3050 & 3051/Del/2012 5 Era Advertising & Marketing Ltd. were being operated and controlled by Shri

Shri Yathartha Vashishth, Faridabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3870/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 194CSection 68

proprietor of ‘M/s. Yathartha Constructions’ engaged in the business of civil contractor and developing of group housing complex. On the information received from the Investigation Wing as incorporated above, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had received sum of Rs.17.91 crores from M/s. Samyak Project Pvt. Ltd. and the payment ... maintain any books of account, and therefore, provision of Section 68 cannot be applicable. From the documents relied upon by the Investigation Wing, it was 9 I.T.A. No.3870/DEL/2016 submitted that following facts are apparent from the records which needs to be considered:- “Attention of your good-self is drawn towards