TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these three types of entries. Therefore, to upheld the addition to the extent of 1.50% is not justified on the facts of the case more particularly when AO has not brought any material on record to justify the addition to this extent. Looking in to the facts of the case and the decisions relied upon, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in taking commission rate 0.80%. Therefore, we decline to interfere in a such well reasoned finding of CIT(A), hence, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly these grounds relating to the determination of rate of commission by the assessee as well as by the department are dismissed. Unexplained cash credit - A.Y. 2012-13 - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has listed out the amount from various bank accounts in para 13 which are found to be the turnover of accommodation entries relating to the entities who have furnished the return of income as well as audited accounts which are relied upon and Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the same cannot be treated as unexplained deposits in the hands of the assessee. After perusing the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the findings of Ld. CIT(A), therefore we decline to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 9,49,10,815/-. 3. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal. ITA NO. 1752/DEL/2015 (AY 2010-11) (REVENUE S APPEAL) 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as well in deleting the addition of ₹ 83,71,29,511/- out of total addition of ₹ 213,01,14,122/- on account of unexplained credits and entries without examining and adjudicating upon on merits of the cases. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as well in allowing relief to the assessee amounting to ₹ 83,71,29,511/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to discharge his onus of explaining the cash credits found recorded in his books / banks accounts. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as well in deleting the addition of ₹ 35,29,485/- out of total addition of ₹ 1,02,26,521/- on account of commission income @1.5% without examining and adjudicating upon on merits of the cases. 4. a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 29- 03-2012. From the documents found and seized, AO noticed that the assessee was involved in providing bogus entries. According to the AO, it was admitted by the assessee in the statements recorded on oath during the course of search on 29-03- 2012 and post search on 14-04-2012 that he is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries. The assessee in the statements recorded on 29-03-2012 has admitted that he has received brokerage/commission. During the course of search a laptop was also seized. It was noticed by the AO that the assessee was carrying on the activity of providing bogus entries through various entities which were admitted to be controlled and managed by the assessee. At pages 5 to 10 of the assessment order, the AO has listed such 88 entities their PAN Nos and addresses are also given. The AO has also re-produced the details of 203 bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .17 crore ₹ 213 crore ₹ 632.47 crore 2.3 The AO further noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank accounts aggregating to ₹ 235,96,03,074/-. The financial year wise bifurcation is as under:- Financial Year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ₹ 83,71,29,511 ₹ 85,38,93,689 ₹ 66,85,79,874 Total ₹ 235,96,03,074/- 2.4 The AO has also recorded the statement of the assessee which has also been reproduced in the assessment order at pages 65 to 74 and list of the companies is given in the statement at pages 75 to 76 and list of partnership firms at pages 77 to 79. The AO also issued show cause notice to the assessee seeking explanation as to why the cash mentioned above should not be added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee furnished reply dated 28-03-2014 which is also re-produced in the assessment order at pages 90 to 97. The assessee claimed expenses incurred by him for format ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t record and perused it wherever necessary. On perusal of the assessment order it is seen that there was sufficient correspondence pertaining to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer and replies furnished by the appellant. However, I find that in the entire assessment order the Assessing Officer relied on the material found and seized and also on the statements of the appellant and statements of the dummy directors and proprietors and made out a case that the appellant is an accommodation entry operator. This fact has also been admitted by the appellant himself that he provided accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through the entities controlled and managed by him. Therefore, the fact that the appellant is an accommodation entry operator is not in dispute. The appellant also did not dispute this conclusion of the Assessing Officer as most of the statements of the appellant which were quoted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order unambiguously indicate that the appellant was an accommodation entry provider. The appellant also did not furnish any evidence contrary to this understanding and conclusion during the appeal proceedings. I therefore, have no hesita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and unjustified to make an addition of ₹ 84,73,56,032/- as income of the appellant. Therefore, there is merit in the ground raised by the appellant for not providing sufficient opportunity to explain his version to impeach or negate the opinion/view harnessed by the Assessing Officer. 2.5 While deleting the addition in respect of accommodation entries the observation of CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee are reproduced as under:- 10. I have gone through the assessment order carefully, written submissions of the appellant and citations of the case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer in support of the addition made, and by the appellant in support of his contentions, as well, and considered them. These grounds of appeal are a mix of arguments and grounds leading to the main ground or grievance that the appellant should not or cannot be held to be assessable to the entire estimated turnover of ₹ 84,73,56,032/- of the entry business. On perusal of the assessment order and material on record, I agree with the appellant's contention in this aspect for the following reasons mentioned in the para below: 10.1 On the basis of the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f) The Assessing Officer listed the names of 15 persons who were dummy directors, partners, proprietors of various entities managed and controlled by the appellant. The statements of 15 persons was also recorded u/s 131(1A) of the I T Act. To drive home a point, the Assessing Officer also incorporated the relevant portion of the statement recorded of one of the persons mentioned here. It was accepted by all of them that documents were endorsed at the instance of the appellant for which they were paid a small amount. g) The Assessing Officer also relied on some important documents found and seized from the appellant's premises like Annexure A-27 which a 2011 diary, Annexure A-30, a diary titled Celebrate Purple , Annexure A-32, a diary depicting the details of the bank account of various entities managed by the appellant in Axis Bank, DCB Bank etc. h) Surrender of ₹ 18 crores made by 7 beneficiaries in Chandigarh, out of the total turnover of ₹ 213,01,14,122/- and accepted by the Assessing Officer while computing the income of the appellant for the year 2011-12. 10.1.1 From the above it is evident that on the basis of the seized material and detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of the appellant/assessee ii) Maintained for any previous year iii) Assessee offers no explanation about a) the source and b) the nature iv) The explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer satisfactory v) The sum so credited may be charged to income tax vi) As the income of the assessee of that year, in relation to which is so found to have credited. The catch words in this section are Any sum found credited and in the books of accounts of the assessee . In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer stated that the appellant did not produce the cash book to explain the source and availability of cash deposited on various dates in the bank. The Assessing Officer also observed that the onus in on the appellant to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of the cash received which the appellant did not discharge, in proving the cash deposits in its bank account. 10.1.6 From the above observation and discussion of the Assessing Officer two aspects are evident regarding the facts of the case. One, that cash book is a part of the books of accounts maintained by the appellant which was not prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the claim of the appellant that cash was received from the beneficiary companies in lieu of loan/capital gain money on the ground that he did not disclose the name, addresses, PAN of the alleged beneficiaries. It may not be out of place to mention that in the assessment order itself, the Assessing Officer based on the perusal of seized material, details provided and bank statements, tabulated a detailed account of entire operation giving the names of complete intermediaries utilized by him for providing accommodation entries, list of the beneficiaries to whom he provided such entries, names of these beneficiaries who surrendered the entry amount sought from the appellant, names of the entities of the appellant's group from beneficiaries sought entries along with amount and financial year etc. When the Assessing Officer himself brought on record the names of the beneficiaries who sought entries from the entities controlled and managed by the appellant, there is no question of taxing the appellant regarding such amounts taken by the beneficiaries as unexplained cash credits in his hands. It is fair and the Assessing Officer is duty bound to state or bring on record some mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re issued (list of beneficiaries tabulated by the Assessing Officer on pages 107-- 20 of the order who received cheques from the appellant's group entities). Therefore, taxation of this sum amounting to ₹ 83,71,29,511/- should be made in the hands of the beneficiaries, as it occurred in the case of disclosure made by seven beneficiary companies which was correct and consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case. The effort of the Assessing Officer to tax this sum of ₹ 83,71,29,511/- in the hands of the appellant is not only detrimental but against the interest of the revenue as the beneficiaries may try to take the benefit of this contradictory approach of the Assessing Officer. If the contradiction is estimated, there is possibility in succeeding to bring to tax the beneficiaries who are identified and listed out in the assessment order. 10.1.10 Facts emerging from the assessment order undisputedly indicate that it is incorrect on the part of the Assessing Officer to allege that the appellant did not provide him with the trail of events leading to beneficiaries. It is very obvious that the Assessing Officer was in possession of entire information in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit appearing in their handsinterestingly, both the appellant and the Assessing Officer referred to the case of Sh. S. K. Gupta. Even though the facts of the appellant's case are identical to that of the facts of the case relied upon by the Assessing Officer, yet he rejected the appellant's submissions. 10.1.13 The cases referred by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has no relevance here as the facts of the present case do not fit into the provisions laid down in section 68 of the I T Act, 1961. 10.1.14 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, I do not agree with the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding taxing the total turnover of entries amounting to ₹ 83,71,29,511/- as unexplained cash credit after accepting the appellant to be the entry operator. Since the beneficiaries are identified, the amounts of ₹ 83,71,29,511/-should be brought to tax in their respective hands. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 83,71,29,511/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits is hereby deleted. 2.6 Further, while deleting the addition partly in respect of commission, the observations of Ld. CIT(A) read as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sh. S. K. Gupta u/s 245D(4) of the I T Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. c) Sanjay Kumar Garg Vs ACIT (2011) 12 Taxman.com 294 (Delhi) d) Sanjay Rastogi Vs ACIT ITA No. 164 to 168/De1/2010. In all the above cases only commission income net of expenses have been assessed. The AR of the appellant also tabulated the estimated rate of commission on the basis of the above judicial decisions as under:- Authority deciding the matter Name of the assessee Rate of Commission Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi. Sh. Manoj Aggarwal 0.35 % Income Tax Settlement Commission, Principle Bench, New Delhi Sh. S.K. Gupta 0.80 % ITAT, New Delhi Sh. Sanjay Kumar Garg 0.20% ITAT, New Delhi Sh Sanjay Rastogi 0.50% 13.1.4 On perusal of this issue, I find that there was no evidence in the seized material to assess the income of the appellant at 1.5% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jewellery found Jewellery seized 1. 132 In the hands of Sh. Himanshu Verma, C- 44, 1st Floor, Shardapuri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi 51,77,000/- 50,00,000/- Nil Nil 2. 132 Bank A/c no. 911020011758447, of M/s Veritable Township Pvt. Ltd., Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 65,987/- 65,987/- Nil Nil 3. 132 Bank A/c no.911020012187169 of M/s Omex pro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 5,22,380/- 5,22,380/- Nil Nil 4. 132 Bank A/c no.911020013042788, of M/s SNG Securities Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 1,49,52,528/- 1,49,52,528/- Nil Nil 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 2,45,640/- 2,45,640/- Nil Nil 14. 132 Bank A/c no. 910020037798983, of M/s Transmission Merchandise Pvt. Ltd, Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 1,49,75,853/- 1,49,75,853/- Nil Nil 15. 132 Bank A/c no910020037795214, of M/s Royal Mirage Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 1,99,53,930/- 1,99,53,930/- Nil Nil 16. 132 Bank A/c no. 910020027729096, of M/s Shri Hari Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 9,17,340/- 9,17,340/- Nil Nil 17. 132 Bank A/c no. 910020037604833, of A/s Silco Fabrics, Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar New Delhi 81,596/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Co., Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 93,49,000/- 93,49,000/- Nil Nil 27. 132 Bank A/c no. 909020045782521, of M/s Green vision Construction Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 1,00,07,000/- 1,00,07,000/- Nil Nil 28. 132 Bank A/c no. 910020029852596, of M/s Gulmohar Fabrics Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 3,01,000/- 3,01,000/- Nil Nil 29. 132 Bank A/c no. 911020003787336, of M/s Citylife Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 2,31,000/- 2,31,000/- Nil Nil 30. 132 Bank A/c no. 911020014449830, of M/s Carewell Project and Development Pvt. Ltd. Axis Bank Branch, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Sarswati Fabrics Development Credit Bank, Kondli Branch, New Delhi 15,28,500/- 15,28,000/- Nil Nil 40. 132 Bank A/c no. 09320200000408, of M/s Star City Enterprises Development Credit Bank, Kondli Branch, New Delhi 15,31,992/- 15,31,000/- Nil Nil 41. 132 Bank A/c no. 09320200000471, of M/s Life Time Trading Co. Development Credit Bank, Kondli Branch, New Delhi 15,31,100/- 15,31,000/- Nil Nil Total 29,11,56,727 29,09,62,065 Nil Nil 13.1 On perusal of the assessment order and record, I find that the Assessing Officer did not discuss anything with regard to the addition made amounting to ₹ 29,11,56,727/-. I also find that in the course of the assessment proceedings, the appellant sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operly accounted for in the books of the entities, whose audited financial statements like balance sheet, profit and loss account, etc. were also submitted to the Assessing Officer. 13.1.3 A fact that emerged from the material on record is that the Assessing Officer neither provided a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to explain the source of funds found in the bank accounts of various entities nor carried out any due diligence himself before concluding that the sums deposited in the bank account were unexplained. After examining the audited financial statements submitted by the appellant, he did not give any adverse finding that the amounts seized from the respective bank accounts which were shown on the assets side of the balance sheet was unexplained. He also did not bring any material on record to give a finding that the amount actually belonged to the appellant. Having accepted the appellant to be an entry operator, the Assessing Officer should have examined and verified these bank accounts of various entities to establish the name of the beneficiary of such amount and correlate the same with the list of beneficiaries identified or to bring on record new beneficiar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From the above, it is evident that the sum of ₹ 29,11,56,727/- (actual seizure made of ₹ 29,09,62,065/-) is the one against which there is no cash deposit in the relevant entity's accounts and where audited accounts were submitted. Therefore, out of the sum of ₹ 29,09,62,065/- which was seized by the Department and brought to tax by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash, an amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- seized in cash in the hands of the appellant and a total sum of ₹ 2,64,68,506/- deposited in the bank accounts of the entities listed above from where seizure by way of pay orders was made is considered as unexplained. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 3,16,45,506/- (Rs.50,00,000 + ₹ 2,64,68,506/-) is confirmed out of ₹ 29,11,56,727/- (actual seizure made of ₹ 29,09,62,065/-) and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a consequential order accordingly. This ground is partly allowed. 3. Ld. CIT(DR), Ms. Puja Jindal, has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much in fact in deleting the addition in respect of accommodation entries provided by the assessee through various entities, the details of which were found dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this regard she pointed out to the observation of AO from pages 54 to 63 wherein the AO has added s sum of ₹ 28,59,79,727/- on account of sum deposited in the bank accounts which was also siezed and cash of ₹ 51.77 lakh found at the premises of the assessee out of which ₹ 50,00,000/- was seized and thus the addition was made by the AO of a sum of ₹ 29,11,56,727/-. She further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly granted the relief to the extent of ₹ 25,95,11,221/- on the ground that the assessee has been able to explain the cash deposit to this extent. Thus, she submitted that in all the three appeals the department is agitating the deletion of addition made on account of providing the accommodation entries and deletion of the commission to the extent of @0.70% and in addition of that in respect of A.Y. 2012-13 the department is agitating the deletion of ₹ 25,95,11,221/- out of total addition on this account of ₹ 29,11,56,727/-. Thus, she pleaded that the relief granted by CIT(A) on all these issues should be set aside and the additions made by the AO should be restored. 4. On the other hand, Sh. Vivek Bansal, Ld. Counsel for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 47.86 lakhs cannot be verified. In both the head a lump sum amount is debited with the description of EXP and SKG. The amount debited in these account sometimes was an high as ₹ 3,00,000 or ₹ 5,00,000. The applicant has not given mediator-wise details of payment. There is no evidence in record to show that the payments as claimed by the applicant were made to the mediators. It is likely that mediator who are well known to the beneficiaries might had received commission from them also. In the absence of any verification of nature of expenses, and their allowability the expenses incurred by the applicant in earning the commission has to be estimated. 28. on the basis of facts on record, we estimate the expenses incurred by the applicant in earning commission @20% of the gross commission received. On the basis the expenditure is working out to ₹ 27,50,682 on commission of ₹ 1,37,56,410. After reducing the said expenditure incurred from the gross commission , the income of the applicant is settled at ₹ 1,10,02,728/- 4.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee further made a reference to the decision of ITAT in the case of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Garg Vs ACIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case are as under. The assessee is a Chartered Accountant. A survey operation u/s 133A(1) was carried out at the premises of the assessee where incriminating documents were found showing that assessee was engaged in giving bogus/accommodation entries. These accommodation/bogus entries were provided through various concerns run and controlled by assessee. The income of the assessee was reassessed and commission income on the bogus/accommodation entries computed @ 0.50% on the value of bogus transactions was added. The addition was partly sustained by the CIT (A) @ 0.40% of the value of bogus entries. The addition was finally upheld by the ITAT @ 0.50% of the total value of bogus entries given by the various concerns run for this by the assessee. The ITAT in its order dated 12.11.2008 has sustained the addition in the hands of the assessee by holding as under :- 8. We have heard both the sides. As the facts emerge the transaction in question have not been denied by the assessee. At the same time, a valid argument is made that the department is taxing the same commission in the hands of the assessee as well as in the hands of respective companies. We find the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on pronounced in the open Court on 28th January, 2015 4.4 Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Vijay Conductors India Pvt. Ltd in ITA 683/2015decision dated 29-09-2015 wherein the observation of Hon ble Delhi High Court in prara 8 are as under:- 8. It is not in dispute that the Respondent Assessees are the conduit entities and not the beneficiaries. Consequently, the order of the ITAT deleting the addition under Section 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 4.5 Thus, it was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that no addition can be made in the hands of accommodation entry provider of the value of the accommodation entry provided by him. So far as it relates to assessability of 0.80% of commission and its excessiveness, Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the submissions made before Ld. CIT(A) which have been reproduced in the above part of this order. Referring to the submissions, it was further contended by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the quantum of commission assessed should be further reduced. So far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s CAs operating in this field, the cash was received from them to give the entries through cheques from any of the entities controlled by him on which commission is received in the range of 0.75% to 1.75%. In answer to question No. 12, it was also stated that he was receiving such commission in cash. Further, the fact of receiving commission has also been confirmed through the evidence found in the shape of laptop of the assessee which was seized and marked as annexure A-37, which according to AO as per observation in his assessment order, has revealed that assessee was receiving brokerage/commission at the rate of 1% to 1.50%. The AO has also listed out 88 entities in the assessment order which are managed and controlled by the assessee. The AO has also listed out 203 bank accounts of these entities through which such accommodation entries have been provided by the assessee. All these fact establish beyond doubt that the assessee has been acting only as a conduit to provide accommodation entries to the beneficiaries which are identifiable through the bank accounts of the entities controlled and managed by the assessee for providing accommodation entries. No material has been broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o gone through these decisions relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order, wherein it was held that in the case of assessee who is the entry provider, addition could not be made in respect of entries but only of commission. In addition to the decision relied upon before CIT(A) Ld. AR has also placed reliance upon following decisions which also confirm the aforementioned view:- A. M/s Omni Farms Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.3477/Del/2013 dated 28-01- 2015 This is consolidated order of ITAT dated 28-01-2015 in respect of nine assessees. The issue before Tribunal was that whether addition equal to entry provided by an entry provider can be made in the hands of such entities. The ITAT after referring to several decisions has come to the conclusion that no such addition can be sustained in the hands of the entry provider. The relevant paras are re-produced below:- 17. Thus, there is an order of the Settlement Commission as well as the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 144A holding that Shri S.K. Gupta was providing accommodation entries, he used various companies as conduit for providing the accommo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds pertaining to this addition in all these assessment years in all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. As regards other issue relating to rate of commission in the hands of the assessee which has been held to be an entry operator. We find that the AO has estimated such commission 1.5% of the entries provided by the assessee to different entities. The assessee has agitated this addition before CIT(A) and reliance was placed on the following decisions to contend that the addition to the extent of 1.5% as commission is excessive:- Authority deciding the matter Name of the assessee Rate of Commission Special Bench of ITAT, New Delhi Sh. Manoj Aggarwal 0.35% Income Tax Settlement Commission, Principle Bench, New Delhi Sh. S.K. Gupta 0.80% ITAT, New Delhi Sh. Sanjay Kumar Garg 0.20% ITAT, New Delhi Sh. Sanjay Rastogi 0.50% 6.1 Ld. CIT(A) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed at pages 50 to 130. The basis of relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has been able to produce not only the copy of acknowledgment of return filed by those concern but also the audited balance sheet of these concern. It was also noticed by Ld. CIT(A) that the deposit in those accounts also belong to external parties and the balance were also claimed by them for example the reference is made to the Ceebco, Ujjwal Micro finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ujjwal Rral Services Ltd. and M/s Dhanpur Engineering Ltd. from where it was noticed that several crores of Rupees were circular transaction and these were not cash deposit but were properly accounted for in the accounts of those entities for which the audited financial statements were also submitted to the assessing officer. The details of these entries have been culled out in Annexure-3 submitted before Ld. CIT(A) at pages 138 of the paper book and the details that these entries were properly accounted for was also submitted. Reference in this regard can be made to the documents enclosed in the paper books from pages 131 to 141. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has also listed out the seized amount of ₹ 29,09,62,065/- which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
