9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 5077250/- on account of unexplained credits received by the assessee company from Shri SK Gupta and the various companies controlled by him without appreciating the fact that Shri SK Gupta is an established entry provider." 4. Facts of the case:- assessee is a company, who filed return of income on 31/08/2005 declaring total income of Rs. 6 074365/-. Subsequently the assessment under section 143 (3) of the income tax act, 1961 was passed on 23/12/2006, wherein the total income was assessed at Rs. 2 060 4010/-. Subsequently notice under section 148 was issued on 29/03/2007, and assessment was passed on the income of Rs. 2 060 4010 under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the income tax act on 31/ 12/ 2007. Subsequently search was conducted under section 132 of the income tax act on M/s Bhushan steel group of cases on 03/03/2010. During the search, documents belonging to the assessee company have been found and seized. Therefore, notice under section 150 3C was issued on 23/11/2010 recording the satisfaction on 23/11/2010 and copy of the satisfaction no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the books of accounts. 7. The Ld. assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee for the reason that Mr. S. K. Gupta categorically admitted in statement before the investigation wing that the various companies manage and control by him did not have any actual business activity but are paper companies. Further assessee did not produce any documentary evidence regarding the purpose of lending the money to Sh. S. K. Gupta and other companies controlled by him as claimed by the assessee. Before the Ld. assessing officer, assessee has not produced the contract notes of sale and purchase of such securities claim to have been sold to and purchased from S. K. Gupta. Therefore according to the Ld. assessing officer the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of its claims and hence an addition of Rs. 2 100 7350 was made to the total income of the assessee as unexplained income. 8. Assessee contested the above addition before the Ld. CIT A who rejected all the contention of the assessee on the jurisdictional issue of the provisions of section 153A and 153C, however he deleted the addition of Rs. 2 100 7350/- despite recording the facts are simply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further relied upon several decisions of various courts and strongly contested that order passed by the Ld. CIT appeal is not sustainable. 11. We have carefully considered the contentions of the Ld. departmental representative and submission made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A). We have also perused the orders of the lower authorities. Both the lower authorities have held that assessee has entered into certain transactions with one-accommodation entry providers, Mr. S. K. Gupta. Even the assessee has not denied entering into the transaction with Mr. S. K. Gupta, or all those entities, which are named by the Ld. assessing officer as accommodation entry providers. The only claim of the assessee was that the transactions entered into with these parties are the transaction of purchase and sale of shares, which are recorded in the books of accounts. However, assessee has not produced contract notes of sale and purchase of such securities, which have been claimed to be purchased and sold through Mr. S. K. Gupta and other companies, controlled by him. The assessee has not also produced any documentary evidence to show that amount of loan or financial transaction that were entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee before him that all the transactions are entered by him through account payee cheques or banking channel. We are also surprised that despite there was an allegation of accommodation entry provider providing those entries to the assessee, the Ld. CIT A, believed them to be genuine transactions. The accommodation entries itself shows that the cheques are to be provided. Obviously through banking channel for unaccounted income of the beneficiaries. It is also very naïve to believe for the Ld. first appellate authority that if the transactions entered through banking channel, they should be accepted by the revenue as genuine. We are not aware of any such authority, which has stated so in case of such a blatant case of obtaining benefit of accommodation entries through unaccounted income. Even otherwise transaction through banking channel and transaction in cash does not have material difference except that when the entries are passed through banking channel. It has some level of KYC compliance. Use of banking channel makes an entry neither genuine nor ingenuine. With respect to the opportunity of cross-examination of Mr. S. K. Gupta to the assessee was not avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 3 of the appeal of the revenue are general in nature and therefore dismissed. 13. In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 3357/Del/2013 for assessment year 2004 - 05 is partly allowed. 14. Appeal for assessment year 2005-06 was preferred by revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT A dated 13/03/2013 wherein the addition of Rs. 5 077250/- with respect to the unexplained credit received by the assessee from Sh. S. K. Gupta was deleted. 15. The facts of the relevant issue involved in the appeal are similar to the facts discussed in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004 - 05. During the year the information found from the laptop of Mr. S. K. Gupta was that assessee has obtained and accommodation entry of Rs. 5 255000 from that particular person. The assessee could not produce the basic details before the Ld. assessing officer on the issue. On appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), the additions were deleted. For the similar reasons as given in the appeal of the revenue in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2004 - 05. 16. The arguments of the Ld. departmental representative remained the same for this year too. 17. We have carefully considered the submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
