Law & Society

Eminent Computers Pvt Ltd vs ITO

View Case

Initially return of income filed by the assessee declaring an income of Rs.7,15,990/- was processed under section 143 (1). Subsequently, it was found that Pradeep Kumar Jindal provided bogus entries to various business entities and individuals by accepting cash from them. It was also found that 15 companies floated by Pradeep Kumar Jindal, which were subjected to search and survey proceedings, have no genuine business activities but have been made front companies. Assessing Officer received the information that in the case at hand, share capital premium of Rs.45,00,000/- have been received from certain entities without his knowledge and the said 34 companies were belonging to Pradeep Kumar Jindal.

Coordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in case cited as ITO, Ward 17 (4), New Delhi vs. M/s. Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.89/Del/2012 & M/s. Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 17 (4), New Delhi in CO No.57/Del/2012 order dated 09.02.2018 dealt with the identical issue arising out of the search and seizure operation conducted by the Investigation Wing on Pradeep Kumar Jindal Group of companies who were allegedly engaged into providing accommodation entries, quashed the reassessment on the ground that AO has not applied his judicial mind independently and that ld. Principal CIT has accorded mechanical approval by merely writing words that “Yes, I am satisfied.” without applying his judicial mind. Reassessment opened by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) in this case is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence hereby quashed. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed.

Share your thoughts using the comment section below

%d bloggers like this: