TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee : Shri Devinder Pal, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi, Dated 01.12.2017, for the A.Y. 2007-2008. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee company filed return of income declaring loss of ₹ 537/- on 24.09.2007. The case was selected for scrutiny under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act and notice under section 148 was issued after recording reasons and getting approval of the competent authority. The reasons are reproduced in the assessment order as under : A search seizure action was conducted by unit-VI(2) at the residence and offices of Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and. Sh. Virender Jain on 14.09.2010 various incriminating documents/material was seized during the course of search. During the post search investigation and perusal of seized documents it was observed that Sh. Surender1 Kumar Jain and Sh. Virender Jain were engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries by providing cheques/PO/DD in lie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pg. no. 01-02-07 Hillridge Investment s ltd. RKG Housing P. Ltd. HDFC 01-02-07 20,00,000 Kukreja A-65 4 08-02-07 Hillridge Investment s ltd RKG Housing P. Ltd. UTI Ch. No. 068153 08-02-07 20,00,000 Kukreja A-65 14 In view of the report received from O/o the DIT (Inv), New Delhi and in view of the facts narrated above it is clear that the assessee had provided its own cash to arrange a credit entry from the company Hillridge Investment Ltd. Controlled by Sh Surender Kumar Jain and Virender Jain. Thus, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, he joined this company as Accountant in October 2013 and became Director in January 2014. He was not conversant with the financial affairs of the company of assessment year under appeal. He was not in a position to give even one reason for investing in the assessee company without any return and acting in an improbable manner against the wisdom of a normal and prudent person. The A.O. noted that in answer to question no. 24, he has admitted that M/s Hillridge Investment Ltd has given the accommodation entries of ₹ 40 lacs as share money to assessee company in assessment year under appeal. The A.O, therefore, treated the amount of ₹ 40 lakhs as bogus accommodation entry and addition was made of this amount against the assessee. The A.O. also noted that as per the modus operandi followed by the entry operators, they were charging commission ranging between 0.25% to 1% for their services of channelising undisclosed income of the beneficiaries through their bank accounts. The A.O, therefore made the addition of ₹ 20,000/- being 0.5% of the amount involved and made the addition under section 69C of the I.T. Act on account of expenditure from undisclosed sources. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Investor Company has confirmed making investment in assessee company, therefore, addition should have been deleted. 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions : 1. PCIT vs. NRA Iron Steel (P.) Ltd., [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC). 2. PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd., 2019-TIOL- 172-HC-DEL-IT. 3. CIT vs. Nipun Builders Developers (P.) Ltd., 350 ITR 407 (Del.). 4. CIT vs. Nova Promoters Finlease (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 169 (Del.). 5. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., 29 taxmann.com 291 (Del.) 6. CIT vs. MAF Academy (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 258 (Del.). 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The A.O. initiated the re- assessment proceedings because information was received that during the course of search and seizure operation in the case of Shri S.K. Jain and Shri Virender Jain, various incriminating material was found that they have been providing accommodation entries through various other companies. In the case of the assessee, it was found that assessee had received accommodation entries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008. These facts clearly support the findings of the authorities below that assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of the Investor and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The Ld. D.R. also referred to bank statements of the Investor Company, copy of which is filed in the paper book to show that before giving accommodation entry to the assessee, there was negligible balance in the account of the Investor Company. These facts coupled with the statement of the Director of the Investor Company clearly show that M/s. Hillridge Investment Ltd., has given accommodation entry of ₹ 40 lakhs to the assessee. The decisions relied upon by the Ld. D.R, thus, clearly supports the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. Learned Counsel for the Assessee was not able to point-out any error in the Order of the authorities below for making the addition of ₹ 40 lakhs and ₹ 20,000/-. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities. If the said test is applied in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
