R.K. Panda ORDER
R.K. Panda, Member (A)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th May, 2019 of the CIT(A)-7, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2011-12.
2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:-
"1. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is wrong and bad in law.
2. That the Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. AO erred both on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in making addition of Rs. 3,05,400/- under section 68 by treating loan taken by company as unexplained cash credit. The additions has been made on surmises and conjectures rejecting documentary evidences and explanations filed before Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). Thus the additions made by AO are erroneous and bad in law.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") of passing order u/s. 147 Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The said order passed by the Ld. AO is void ab-initio on, inter alia, the grounds that:
a) that the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are not valid;
b) the notice under section 148 was not served on the assessee and
c) It is based on factually erroneous premises and built upon surmises and conjectures.
That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.
That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal."
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and had filed its return of income on 30th September, 2011 declaring a loss of Rs. 3,91,500/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act accepting the return of income. Subsequently, information was obtained from the DDIT (Inv.)-III, Gurugram vide letter No. F. No. ADIT (Inv.)III/Gurugram/2017-18/1428 dated 19.03.2018 according to which Shri Anirudh Joshi had used seven non-genuine concerns for providing accommodation entries which were controlled and managed by him. Out of seven non-genuine firms/concerns, KRAC Securities Pvt. Ltd. was one of the non-genuine firms/concerns which had given accommodation entry of Rs. 3 lakh on 14th February, 2011 to M/s. PV Corporate Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., i.e., the assessee during the financial year 2010-11. On the basis of the information so received, the AO, after recording reasons, reopened the case u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2018. The assessee, in response to the same, filed the return of income on 10th August, 2018 declaring loss of Rs. 3,91,500/- which was returned earlier. The assessee asked for the reasons which were duly provided to the assessee.
4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to explain the accommodation entry of Rs. 3 lakh from the said concerns. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has obtained accommodation entry of Rs. 3 lakh from a non-genuine firm/concern, he made addition of Rs. 3 lakh to the total income of the assessee. Similarly, the AO also made addition of Rs. 5,400/- to the total income of the assessee being the alleged commission @ 1.8% of such accommodation entry. Thus, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,05,400/-.
5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the addition on merit. However, the ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both the i........