9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts maintained in regular course of business and were verifiable from bank account of the assessee as well as the purchase bills and stock registers. 4. That the Id. CIT(APPEALS) has further failed to appreciate that the AO, having not found any defect or discrepancy in the audited accounts of the assesse including trading account, complete stock tally, opening stocks, closing stocks, sales declared etc., ought not to have made any addition only on the basis of suspicion based on alleged statement which too was recorded at the bank of the assesse without providing copy of statement to the assesse and also without providing any opportunity of cross examination. 5. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend any or all grounds of appeal. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case record carefully perused and the relevant decision brought to my notice is considered. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed the original return of income on 29.10.2007 declaring nil income. The return was processed u/s. 143 (1) of the Act. 5. A letter was received from the office of Chief Commissioner of I. Tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have accordingly perused the decision of the coordinate Benches. I find that this Tribunal in ITA no. 1512/Del/2015 was seized identical issues and on identical facts held as under :- "Reasons for the belief that the income has escaped assessment in the case of M/s Krishan Lal Gambhir & Sons for the assessment year 2006-07 A letter bearing F.No. Addl.CIT/(Hq)/(Coord.)/Accommodation entry/2012- 13/15016 dated 26.03.2013 was received from the Office of the Chief Commissioner of I.Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi therein forwarding letter bearing F.No. CIT(C)- II/2012-13/3898 dated 19.03.2013 received from the Commissioner of I.Tax, Central-II, New Delhi along with a CD containing the details of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta & Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain and directing this office to take necessary action as per section 148 in respect of entries pertaining to A.Y. 2006-07, which is time barring on 31.03.2013. The information provided by the CIT, Central-II, New Delhi vide his letter dated 19.03.2013 reads as under: 1. "Kindly find enclosed herewith letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vaibhav Jain during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of I.T. 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 Krishan Lal Gambhir & Sons, whose name is appearing in the said list, has taken accommodation entries from Shri Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain pertaining to A.Y. 2006-07. Also the details of Income Tax Return filed by M/s Krishan Lal Ghambhir & Sons for A.Y. 2006-07 and processing done u/s 143(1) of I.Tax Act thereof were taken out from ITD System. Further, no scrutiny assessment was done in A.Y. 2006-07. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 7,58,321/- for the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 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.T. Act, 1961 as the same is getting barred by limitation on 31/03/2013. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 declared by the assessee cannot be accepted and right course in such case is to reject books of accounts and profit has to be estimated by applying a comparative profit rate in the same trade. Though there can be a little guess work in estimating profit rate but such profit rate cannot be punitive." 12. Ld. DR even though vehemently relied on the order of CIT(A) as well as that of the Assessing Officer, could not bring to our knowledge any cogent material or evidence which may compel us not to follow the decision of this Bench in ITA No. 1372/Del/2015 (supra) and ITA No. 1429/Del/2015(supra). 13. We therefore, respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra) and Shree Radheshyam & Company (supra), delete the addition as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 1,10,845/-. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 13. In another decision this Tribunal in ITA No.7059/Del/2017 and 7061/Del/2017 was again seized with similar situation wherein it followed the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is enclosed as annexure- B. The list of accommodation entry recipients, has been obtained from Sh. Naveneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain. It does not give year wise bifurcation. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as annexure-C, duly signed by Sh. Vaibhav Jain. Thus, the firms mention in the list B' have provided accommodation entries to the firms mentioned in list 'C. 5. The soft copy of the information in respect to annexure A, B & C is also enclosed. 6. The information of accommodation entry includes A.Y. 2006-07 also, which is a time barring year for taking action u/s 148 of the Act 7. This information is forwarded to you for early dissemination to various field offices in Delhi (Soft copy also enclosed).'' It is evident from the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Centra! Circle-10, New Delhi on 28.03.2013 that Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain during the course of search proceedings, in post search proceedings and in assessment proceedings u/s 153A of ( Tax Act 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(1) of I.Tax Act thereof were tried to be taken out from ITD System, However, the same were not found available there. Thus, as per our record, the assessee has not filed any return of income for A.Y. 2007-08. Further, no scrutiny assessment was done in A.Y. 2007-08. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 10,93,580/- for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 has escaped assessment. Besides this, any other income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment, which will come to the notice of this office during assessment proceedings shall also be added back. Thus, I have reasons to believe that it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Proposal in the prescribed form for the A.Y. 2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07) is submitted herewith for kind consideration and necessary approval u/s 151(2) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 as [getting barred by limitation on 31.03.2014. [Pawan Kumar Vashist] Income Tax Officer Ward-39 (3), New Delhi" 6. A perusal of the above clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has borrowed the findings. Moreover, the entries pertain to assessment year 2006-07 as is clearly evident from the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
