9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaring an income of Rs. 1,24,182/-, which was completed u/s 143(3). Subsequently, the assessment was reopened on the allegation that the assessee had made bogus purchases. The assessment was completed by the AO by making addition of Rs. 4,73,855/-, treating the entire purchases made by the assessee from M/s Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Company, to be the accommodation entries. 3. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment, but reduced the addition to 20% of the purchases, amounting to Rs. 94,771/-. 4. The issues involved in various grounds taken by the assessee relate to the validity of the reassessment as well as the sustenance of the addition to the extent of 20%. So far as the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details regarding accommodation entries given by the above entry providers has been obtained by the A.D. 3. The list of accommodation entry recipients has been obtained from Sh. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Vishesh Gupta. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as Annexure A, duly signed by Sh. Vishesh Gupta. The list gives the name of the firm which has provided the accommodation entry along with the name and address of the recipients of accommodation entry. 4. Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain has provided accommodation entry through thirty-seven paper entities. The list of the firms giving accommodation entry is enclosed as annexure-B. The list of accommodation entry recipients, has been obtained from Sh. Naveneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain. It does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Co., whose name is appearing in the said list, has taken accommodation entries from Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain pertaining to AY. 2006-07. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax of M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. amounting to Rs. 4,73,855/- for the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to AY. 2006-07 has escaped assessment and it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Proposal in the prescribed form for the AY. 2006-07 (F. Y. 2005-06) is submitted herewith for kind consideration and necessary approval u/s 151(2) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 as the same is getting barred by limitation on 31/3/2013. If approved, notice u/s 148 of the act may be issued. Sd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject mentioned above. 2. The assessment of search cases of Sh. Rakesh gupta, Sh. Vishesh Gupta, Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain are under process with the ACIT, Central Circle-10. During the assessment proceedings u/s 153A in the aforesaid cases, details regarding accommodation entries given by the above entry providers has been obtained by the A.O. 3. The list of accommodation entry recipients has been obtained from Sh. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Vishesh Gupta. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as Annexure A, duly signed by Sh. Vishesh Gupta. The list gives the name of the firm which has provided the accommodation entry along with the name and address of the recipients of accommodation entry. 4. Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of entries= Rs. 13,85,309/- Since Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Valbhav Jain during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of I. Tax Act have admitted that they have given accommodation entries to the parties whose lists have been provided by them to the ACIT, Central Circle-10, New Delhi, therefore, it is fair to conclude that M/s Radhay Shyam & Co., whose name is appearing in the said list, has taken accommodation entries from Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain pertaining to AY. 2006-07. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax of M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. amounting to Rs. 4,73,855/- for the F.Y. 2005-06 relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained. Even otherwise the addition of 20% on the facts and circumstances is apparently too high. The learned CIT(A) having held that tax has to be levied on real income and the profit cannot be ascertained without deducting the cost of purchases from the sales as otherwise it amount to levy of tax on gross receipt, she ought to have applied' profit rate in this nature of trade. Estimating profit at the rate of 20% by taking into consideration the or visions of section 40A(3) will not lead to determination of correct real income. Section 40A(3) is meant for a different purpose when the assessee has made purchases in cash. This provision cannot be applied in such cases. Once the purchases are held to be bogus then the trading results decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
