TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent assessee and are directed against the respective order of the CIT (A) XXXIII, New Delhi. As common issues are involved and as the parties sought clubbing of the appeals, we heared the appeals together and dispose off the same by way of this common order. 3. Facts in brief: A search and seizure operation was carried out u/s 132 of the IT Act 1961, on Tarun Goyal Group of Companies on 15.9.2008. Mr. Tarun Goyal is a tax consultant. He was running a racket of providing accommodation entries. We extract para 4 of the assessment order of Shri Tarun Goyal for AY 2004-05 dated 24/12/2010 for ready reference as this would give a glimpse of the Modus Operandi followed by the assessee. 4. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention the modus operandi of the assessee and Sh. Tarun Goyal who was managing the company. (i) Sh. Tarun Goyal created a number of Private Ltd. companies and firms for providing accommodation entries. More than 90 companies were registered from the office premises of Sh.Tarun Goyal i.e. 13/34, W.E.A., Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The directors of these companies were his employees, who worked in his office as peons, clerks, receptionist etc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... floating numerous companies and following layering of accounts, after cash was introduced in various companies. 6. Letter dated 14.12.2010 given by Mr. Tarun Goyal as given by the AO is extracted for ready reference: 6. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted vide letter dated 14-12-2010, It is respectfully submitted: 1. That the Investigation Wing of the Department during the search proceedings and during the post search Investigations, framed the case against the undersigned and its group of companies, that it collected cash from various companies and issued cheques in lieu thereof, known as accommodation entry . And that the undersigned and its companies earned a commission on the said accommodation entry. In order to have a peace of mind and to settle the matter for all times to come, the undersigned agreed to the commission income and accordingly, surrendered the commission income on accommodation entry of Rs.40 crores, with a commission income of Rs.10 lacs, which has been accounted for as income in the personal income tax return of the undersigned Mr.Tarun Goyal during the year of the search viz. A.Y. 2009- 10. 2. That a detail of all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, cash deposited could not be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. In the alternative and without prejudice to Ground No. 1, only the commission income could be considered in the case of the appellant for the year under appeal notwithstanding that the appellant had already voluntarily surrendered income on account of commission in his income tax return for A.Y. 2009-10 calculated @ Rs.2.50 per thousand. 3. That the appellant prays for addition / modification of any of the grounds at that time of hearing of the appeal. 11. We have heard Mr. V.P. Gupta the ld. counsel for the assessee at length. Papers books are filed by the assessee in support of his contentions. 12. The appeals have been categorized into 5 groups. The common ground in all the appeals is that addition can be made only in the case of Tarun Goyal. In 9 appeals, addition made on account of cash deposits in bank account and commission income are disputed. In 80 appeals grounds relate to addition on account of commission. 2 appeals involve grounds disputing addition of cash deposit. One appeal involve grounds for addition made on account of commission and entry given for purchase of flats. Two a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of cash received and deposited in bank accounts of Group entities. 15. He relied on the assessment order in the case of Mr. Tarun Goyal for the AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and pointed out that the AO has accepted commission income at the rate of declared by the assessee and pleaded that the same should be accepted in earlier year. 16. Dr. Sudha Kumari, ld. CIT DR on the other hand vehemently opposed the contentions of the assessee. She submitted that each assessee is an artificial juristic person in law or an individual and the request of the assessee to frame a single assessment in all the cases would be against law. She submitted that each assessee has to necessarily explain each credits in the books of account and in absence of proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor; the credit in questioned has to be added as income u/s 68 of the Act, in the hands of the assessee in whose books the entry is found. She submitted that the AO has correctly done such an exercise and made additions and the ld. CIT (A) has rightly upheld the same. She countered each and every contention of the assessee. 17. On commission income she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot disputed by the assessee. The only issue before us is the quantification of the income in the hands of Mr. Tarun Goyal and each of the entities formed by him. Each company is an assessee and an assessment order has to be passed separately in each case. The credits appearing in the books of each assessee have to be explained by that assessee. The Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditor has to be proved by that particular assessee and if the same is not proved, addition may be made u/s 68. The argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that all the additions have to be made only in the hands of Mr. Tarun Goyal is not correct and hence cannot be accepted. 21. The contention that the totality of the circumstances have to be considered by arriving at the assessable income and that when the finding is that the assessee has indulged in circular and multiple transactions, by layering, what can be taxed is the peak credit and that too at the first point is acceptable and should be the manner of determining the correct income. If each of the layer is brought out tax, then it would be case of levy of income tax, multiple no. of times, on the same amount. Such levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
