TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 28.07.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A)-25, New Delhi, relating to the A.Y. 2014-2015. 2. This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for want of prosecution. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide M.A.No.630/Del./2019 order dated 16.09.2021 recalled its earlier order. Hence, this is a recalled matter. 3. The grounds raised by the Assessee are as under: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals] 25, New Delhi has erred in not appreciating either the facts or circumstances of the case or submissions of the appellant and has further erred in confirming the addition which is bad in law and on facts. 2. The lower authorities has erred both in law and on facts in sustained the notional addition of ₹ 14,53,800/- being 6% entry fees on the investment of ₹ 2,42,30,000/- without appreciating that the appellant has made the investment in equity shares in the previous year relevant to the Asst. Year 2012-13 in the companies M/s. Srishti Gems Jewels Private Limited M/s. Twinkle Estates Pvt. Ltd. and no dividend was received in the following years. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the A.O. by observing as under : 8. DECISION : 8.1 The Appellant is a Company and for the year under consideration disclosed Income of ₹ 10,020/- vide Return for AY 14-15 E-filed on 18.03.15. The case was picked up for Scrutiny through CASS. 8.2 Subsequently, the case was assessed u/s 143(3) vide Order dated 17.11.16 assessing the Income at ₹ 14,63,820/- after making an addition of ₹ 14,53,800/- as Fee for giving accommodation entries @ 6% of the entries. The Appellant being aggrieved with the Assessment Order has filed this appeal. 8.3 Sh. Abhinandan Jain. CA, the Learned Counsel of the Appellant, stated that during the year, the Appellant has earned Commission Income of ₹ 34,100/-, and after claiming modest expenses, the Appellant had declared Taxable Income of ₹ 10,024/-. It was stated by the Learned Counsel that the Appellant had made investment of ₹ 2,42,30,000/- in the previous year relevant to the Asst. Year 2012-13 out of the Share Capital and Reserve Surplus of ₹ 55,80,000/- ₹ 2,31,52,667/- respectively, and that the Assessing Officer has not appreciated such investment and held that the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case it is held that there is no reason to interfere in the findings of the Learned Assessing Officer who has held that the Appellant Company is an Entry Operator and earned Profit @ 6% as Fee for giving accommodation entries. Hence, the addition of ₹ 14,53,800/- is fully justified. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 14,53,800/- is hereby confirmed. 4.2. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that there was no such addition in the preceding or subsequent assessment years. He submitted that during the A.Y. 2011- 2012 the assessee has declared NIL income, for A.Y. 2012- 2013 the assessee declared income at ₹ 14,530/- and for A.Y. 2013-2014 income was declared at ₹ 9,779/- has been accepted by the A.O. Therefore, making such baseless addition by estimating the profit is not justified. Even in subsequent assessment year also the return of income has been accepted and profit has not been estimated. He, accordingly, submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. 6. Referring to the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that in the preceding assessment years i.e., A.Ys.2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 or in the subsequent assessment years, no addition has been made on such account could not be controverted by the Ld. D.R. In fact, the A.O. at Para 2.1 of his order has also reproduced the income declared by the assessee which is as under : (i) 2011-12 - Rs.NIL (ii) 2012-13 - 4,530/- (iii) 2013-14 - 9,779/- 8.2. Nothing has been brought on record that the income of the assessee in the preceding years has been estimated by adopting profit rate of 6% on the investments. I, therefore, find merit in the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that in view of rule of consistency alone no addition is called for. 8.3. I find the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Excel Industries Ltd., (supra) has observed as under: Applying the three tests la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant, has not been traversed. In that case also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken. Reference was also made to Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) and then it was held (page 329 of 193 UR) : We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. On these reasonings in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter - and if there was no change it was in support of the assessee - we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
