9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the lead case are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical except the difference in the amount of penalty in other assessment year. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the purpose of the present discussions, the case of ITA No. 317/Jodh/2023 is taken as a lead case. 4. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 317/Jodh/2023 on the following grounds; 1. That learned CIT 'A' has erred in confirming that assessment under section 144 and addition made by AO Rs. 1,70,00,070/- is in order. The assessment was made without providing proper opportunity and considering full facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the order passed by learned AO be quashed. 2. That the Learned CIT 'A' has erred in confirming that addition of Rs. 1,69,01,000/- on account of cash deposited in Banks u/s 69 of the Act. The addition was made without following provisions of law and considering full facts of the case. Hence the addition made of Rs. 1,69,01,000/- be deleted. 3. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2 Since the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment, proceedings under the provisions of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, were initiated and notice u/s. 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 was issued by the DCIT, Cirele-2, Udaipur after according necessary approval of Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur vide his office letter No.3587 dated 15.03.2018 which was served upon the assessee through email and speed post. Subsequently, notice u/s. 142(1) alongwith a questionnaire vide dated 13.08.2018 were issued to the assessee and sent through email and speed post, asking the assessee to furnish relevant details, certain explanation and supporting documentary evidences. Simultaneously, the requisition of information under the provisions of section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been pursued from various bank branches in the ease of the assessee. But, in response to the notice u/s 142(1) issued to the assessee, nobody attended nor replied. 5.3 However, for sake of convenience and in the interest of natural justice, another notice as 142(1) issued on 29.10.2018 giving further opportunity of being heard and accordingly. requested to furnish the reply on or before 05.11.2018. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the assessee that since inception of proceedings in the case of the assessee, the assessee totally remained non co-operative towards furnishing requisite details/information/clarification and explanation sought for from time to time. The case of the assessee is time barred one and the limitation for completion of assessment in this case is expiring on 31.12.2018 as such the undersigned has left no alternate but to complete this assessment as an ex-parte under the provisions of section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the basis of details/material/information and supporting documentary evidences available with ld. AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that total cash of Rs.1.23.26,000/- deposited on various dates in assessee's current account No.84501010007333 at Syndicate Bank, Udaipur and cash aggregating to Rs 45,75,000/- also deposited in the asseesee's bank account No.7721130000000 at Oriental Bank of Commerce. Udaipur as per information available on record and further information gathered from respective banks. The assessee was requested to submit the details of cash deposited, genuineness o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made by the appellant. The onus of explaining the source of cash deposit and deduction claimed in the impugned year, to the satisfaction of the AO, rested solely on the assessee. In absence of any explanation and supporting evidence, I believe the action of the AO in bringing to tax, the cash deposit of Rs. 1,69,01,000/- & Rs. 1,00,000/- as unexplained deduction, cannot be faulted. Hence, the addition of Rs. 1,70,01,000/- is upheld. In result, the appeal is dismissed." 7. As the assessee did not find any favour from the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the written submissions and the same is reproduced herein below. 1. Appellant is an individual assessee. 2. Appellant is in private service . 3. On behalf of appellant someone else filed his return of income by misusing his KYC documents on 02.07.2011 declaring income of Rs 3,89,070/-. The Income declared is from Business and Profession Rs 4,89,072/-, and claimed deduction u/s 80C of Rs 1,00,000/- 4. Assessee's case is reopened u/s 147/148 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be quashed. 2. That the Learned CIT 'A' has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,69,01,000/- treating the cash deposited in banks as Cash Credit u/s section 69 of the Act. The addition was made without following provisions of law and considering full facts of the case. Hence addition of Rs 1,69,01,000/- made be deleted, 3. That Learned CIT 'A' has erred in confirming disallowance of claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- made u/s 80C of the I T Act . The disallowance is made without considering full facts of the case and providing proper opportunity. Hence the addition of Rs 1,00,000/- be deleted. OUR SUBMISSION 1. IT is respectfully submitted that all additions in this case is made on the basis of fraudulent return filed by Shree Bharat Bomb by misusing KYC of Sh Pradeep Nimawat. In view of above, we are submitting in following to establish that it is Bharat Bomb who misused the ID Proof of appellant, opened various bank account, various trading concern and obtained loan and bought properties in his name. Hence instead of submitting on each ground of appeal, we request your honour to make common submission covering all grounds of appeal. 2. We are submitting following documents out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities and round tripping of transactions and to maintain credit flow cycle. System of obtaining fictitious bank credit/loans are as under: a) Get registered one Proprietorship or Partnership Firm, LLP, Pvt Ltd Company using fake/photo shopped PAN Card and Other Identification Card of his client, relatives and known person, without their knowledge. b) With the help interested officers of the bank , credit limit by way of home loan, business loan, bill discounting facilities was got sanctioned against securities of fake title deed of properties, letter of credit , insurance policies etc. c) The fund so received is utilised for his own use and when repayment liabilities starts, another firm has been created using the method stated above and fresh credit limits were got in that firm's name . d) As size of turnover and income are major criteria for sanctioning credit facilities, fictitious income were raised by way of providing salary from these dummy concerns , declaring turnover vis a vis higher profits in various business and declaring income under section u/s 44AD, etc. e) In many cases huge FDR were created by using loan/credit proceed of these dummy firm , which in turn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pped in, they called all these person's whose account were used by Mr. Bharat Bomb for interrogation and in his confession before CBI/ED Mr. Bharat Bomb agreed that by using KYC of these persons he opened and operated these accounts. Further after making preliminary inquiry from these persons CBI/ED filed an FIR against Mr. Bharat Bomb and Bank Officers. Lateron Charge sheet is filed against him and various bank officers. Presently ED and CBI both are pursing cases against these banks. SPECIFIC TO THE APPLELLANT 1. Mr. Bharat Bomb opened following Bank account by using KYC of appellant: a) Syndicate Bank Udaipur : Bank Account No84501010007333 b) Oriental Bank of Commerce : Bank Account :No. 7721130000000 2. On Page 36 of PO of ED ( Paper Book Page No ) contains list of partial fake firms used and formed by Shree Bharat in the name of Appellant Bharat , which is as under : Row 4 of table : - M/s Rameshwaram - M/s Shri Ram Exim Trade, - M/s Nakoda Construction Co - M/s Shri Nath Exim Traders - M/s Kama Coloniser - M/s Perfect Construction 3. On Page 50 of PO of ED/CBI (Paper Book Page No in RUD 14 ) CA Bharat Bomb provided details of fake firms, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther respectively submitted in similar case of Shree Deepak Wahi PAN No AACPW6790R, learned CIT (A) of NefAC deleted various addition with following remark : a) Regarding Professional Receipt : 4.2. I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submissions. The AO noted that ITS data pertaining to F.Y. 2015-16, relevant to A.Y. 2016-17, showed that the assessee received income at Rs. 24,75,000/- on account of fees for professional & technical services from M/s Rajshikhar Material Trading LLP, and the TDS on such amount was deducted at Rs. 2,47,500/- u/s 194J of the Act. The assessee stated, before the AO, that he did not provide any professional and other consultancy to the aforesaid firm nor did he receive any income from anyone, during the year, on this count. However, reply furnished by the assessee did not find favour of the AO who mentioned that income so credited was reflected on assessee's own PAN and his own bank accounts which were opened by the assessee by using his personal IDs. Accordingly, the AO made the addition of Rs. 24,75,000/- to the total income of the assessee under the head 'Income from Business or Profession' for the year under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. This very fact was before the AO, however, he did not give much importance because account opening Form bears signature of the assessee and KYC details pertained to the assessee. Secondly, Form 26AS of the assessee showed details of amount credited by M/s Rajshikhar Material Trading LLP and details of TDS deducted thereon. 4.2.1. As regards the AO's concern that account opening Form bears signature of the assessee and KYC details pertained to the assessee, I find that once it is proved that Mr. Bharat Bomb misused name / KYC for opening fake firms, opening bank accounts and doing fake transactions, including the name and details of the appellant, there remains no doubt that the appellant was also a victim of wrong doing of Mr. Bharat Bomb. Not a single and independent concrete evidences has been brought on record, by the AO, to prove that the appellant himself visited the bank branch and put his signature on Form for account opening. In a present scenario, where technology has the power to do many things, therefore, using someone's signature is not exceptional. Facts and details indicating that, in the present case, Mr. Bharat Bomb has misused name / KYC, including signature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above." Considering the facts of the case, I have no doubt that in the present case; the bank accounts were opened by Mr. Bharat Bomb fraudulently, in the name of the appellant, by misusing his name/signature and KYC without the appellant's consent. 4.2.2. As regards the AO's concern that assessee's Form 26AS showed amount credited by M/s Rajshikhar Material Trading LLP and details of TDS deducted thereon, I find that there are numerous judicial precedents wherein it has been specifically held that no addition can be made merely on the basis of entries reflecting in the Form 26AS. Form 26AS is a statement that provides details of any amount deducted as TDS or TCS from various sources of income of a taxpayer. Because Form 26AS is readily available with the AO, it was overlooked that mistakes often creep into this document, solely because of errors committed by other people, not the assessee. Tax deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court On Its Own Motion vs. CIT [2013] 31 taxmann.com 31 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Court considered, on its own and in response to a Public Interest Litigation, difficulties faced by assessees after computerization and central processing of income tax returns and issued seven mandamus. These seven mandamus include the issues relating to entries reflecting in the Form 26AS and wrong deduction of TDS by the Deductor. Thus, it has been concerns of the court that regarding processing of returns by CPC and in certain cases there has been issues, particularly issue of wrong deduction of TDS and inclusion of wrong receipts in the form 26AS. Thus, the Court specifically held that the assessee must not suffer from these technical issues and the same should be solved promptly. In the instant case, the AO has not carried out any independent inquiry with M/s Rajshikhar Material Trading LLP regarding professional services provided by the appellant to it. It is not the case that M/s Rajshikhar Material Trading LLP confirmed the fact of rendering professional services provided by the appellant to it and the amount credited /paid by it against such services. In view of the facts discussed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k, he denied about opening of any account in Syndicate Bank and requested bank to take strong legal action as these were fake accounts. To support his claim, the appellant has furnished copy of Bank's letter and appellant's letter filed before the Manager (Vigilance),Syndicate Bank, Udaipur on 20/04/2016. The appellant has further submitted that the main culprit (Mr. Bharat Bomb), who did this, was already under custody of CBI/ED hence he could not make complain at that time, considering that as it is fault of bank and bank will take all action against them. The appellant has further submitted that Mr. Bharat Bomb himself confessed before ED/CBI that all these accounts were opened by him for manipulating his various bank related transactions and obtaining large bank funds/loan. The appellant further submitted that he had not claimed credit for Tax Deducted at Source in his return of income and he had no option to get his Form 26A Srectified from NSDL as there was no such mechanism in existence till date. The appellant has further submitted that he has already stated, in his statement recorded before ED /CBI, that all bank accounts opened in Syndicate Bank and Canara Bank did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BI/ ED and affected banks also filed criminal complaint again him, on the ground that these accounts were opened by misusing KYC of persons known to Mr. Bharat Bomb. All these facts prove that these bank accounts do not belong to the appellant nor any amounts of FD and interest credited on maturity belong to the appellant. Moreover, it is already discussed that no addition can be made merely on the basis of entries reflected in the Form 26AS. Form 26AS is a statement that provides details of any amount deducted as TDS or TCS from various sources of income of a taxpayer. Because Form 26AS is readily available with the AO, it is forgotten that mistakes often creep into this document, solely because of errors committed by other people, not the assessee. In the instant case, since PAN of the appellant is registered with the bank, therefore, interest credited on FD by the bank along with tax deducted thereon reflected in the Form 26AS of the appellant, but when the accounts itself are not opened And operated by the appellant, then the appellant cannot be held owner of the bank account or amount credited therein. Here I may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench E in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No. 84501010008262 of Syndicate Bank), Rs. 4,99,40,698/- on account of Peak Balance (A/c. No. 84502010083668 of Syndicate Bank) and Rs. 2,48,013/- on account of Peak Balance (A/c. No. 01691310000019 of Canara Bank, after stating that the assessee failed to furnish any detail regarding transactions appearing in these bank accounts. In the written submissions, uploaded on the ITBA Portal, the appellant had reiterated that these accounts, in which all these transaction were carried out, do not belong to the appellant. The appellant had stressed that he has not formed any firm in the name and style of Deepak Traders as his sole proprietorship concern as per provision of Rajasthan VAT Act-2003, one person cannot have registration of two sole proprietorship firms in his /her name, appellant already got one registered sole proprietorship firm in the Name & Style of M/s Marble 2000 INC under the provision of Rajasthan VAT Act-2003 since 04/01/2000. He further submitted that someone obtained registration of Deepak Traders with same address of the Appellant w.e.f. 25/11/2011, however the registration of same was cancelled with effect from 31st March 2012. Mr. Deepak Wahi (Appellant) is hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6.3. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench 'E' (Special Bench) rendered in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 284 (Mumbai - Trib.) (SB). The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench specifically held that where revenue made addition to assessee's income on the ground that cigarettes manufactured by it were sold at a price higher than MRP and said amount of premium was deposited in fictitious bank accounts belonging to assessee, in absence of any evidence on record that those bank accounts were in fact controlled by assessee, impugned addition was to be set aside. The head note from this judgment is reproduced as under:- Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - (Bank Accounts) - Assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-987 - Assessee company namely 'GTC' was engaged in manufacturing of cigarettes -Distribution and sale of cigarettes was made through chain of wholesalers, retail outlets and salesmen - Cigarettes under various brands had different MRPs which were printed on packets - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee was selling cigarettes at a price higher than dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. Road and Udaipur branches, to taling to Rs. 1000.63 crores. The fraud was done over a period of more than four years and it is estimated that 157 accounts were used and defrauded the Bank by resorting to Discount of Fake cheques, discount of fake inland bills and arranging overdraft limits against non existent LIC policies. These fraudulent transactions were done deliberately and with dishonest intention to siphon off the funds of the Bank for illegal personal gains. The amount has been remitted to accounts maintained at Union Bank of India, Sukhadia Circle Branch, Fatehpura Branch and Udaipur Main Branch. Apart from this, remittances have gone to other 29 banks covering various branches to places like Agra, Indore, Kolkata, Mumbai, Bangalore, etc. Records showed that the Total Income declared by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14, through return of income filed on 26/03/2014, was Rs. 8,11,450/-.This does not commensurate with the huge amount transactions carried out by the assessee. The assessee has not submitted explanation regarding transactions, deposits and credits in various bank account in the Syndicate bank and, therefore notice u/s 148 was issued to on 13.04.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in land bills and arranging overdraft limits against non-existent LIC policies. Further in question No. 9, the assessee was asked about the bank statements of the 10 persons and about the transactions in their bank accounts. In the reply assessee admitted that all the 10 people were relatives and employees and that the assessee have fraudulently used their documents and account to obtain loan from Syndicate Bank. Further, it was also admitted that from the financial year 2011-12 to the financial year 2015-16 all the financial transactions were done by the assessee and only assessee himself is accountable for those transactions and is ready to accept accountability of those transactions. Further, in question No. 11and 12 the assessee was asked about the use of the amount obtained by loan. In the reply the assessee has stated that he had used those amount obtained by fraud loans in settling the old small term loans. The assessee has further stated that there is no loan outstanding against the 10 names asked in question No. 9 and all fraud loans were settled accordingly. It was further noticed that the assessee had filed return of income u/s 139(4) for the assessment year 2013-2014 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000 These were financial benefits received/gained by the assessee through his activities and these are transpired to be income generating transactions. How ever, it is evident from return of income that assessee has not disclosed above transactions and income so derived from the these transactions in his return of income." From the above findings recorded in the Mr. Bharat Bomb's case while completing the assessment for the AY 2013-14, it is clear that Sh. Bharat Bomb used KYC of many individuals and operated various bank accounts which were misused in opening these accounts and the present appellant was also a victim of this fraudulent done by Mr. Bharat Bomb. This fact further gets support from the Mr. Bharat Bomb's Confessional statement recorded before the ED. For the sake of clarity, relevant part of Sh. Bharat Bomb's statement recorded on 04/11/2016 before ED is reproduced as under:- "(i) That the name of person whose KYC were used for opening fake firms, opening bank account and doing fake transactions are his family members, his friends and client whose name are (i) Shantilal Bumb, (ii) Azad Bumb, (iii) Pooja Bumb, (iv) Manna Lal Jain, (v) Kalawati Jai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n holding that bank account No. 84501010008262 of Syndicate Bank, A/c. No. 84502010083668 of Syndicate Bank and A / c No. 0169131000019 of Canara Bank, belonged to the appellant. The AO has not done due diligence to cross verify the 15CA/CB forms, allegedly issued by the appellant. This form involves three parties who are (i) The remitter, (ii) The Chartered Accountant and (iii) The Bank Officer. Once the appellant denied these forms all together, the AO must have summoned the Bank Officer and CA who have signed these forms which the AO failed. On the other hand, the appellant has satisfactorily proved that these bank accounts were not opened by him and only his name and KYC were used by Mr. Bharat Bomb for opening these bank accounts. Thus, financial transactions appearing/credited in these bank accounts do not represent the appellant, the additions made at Rs. 6,99,10,134/-on account of Peak Balance (A/c. No. 84501010008262 of Syndicate Bank), Rs. 4,99,40,698/- on account of Peak Balance (A/c. No. 84502010083668 of Syndicate Bank) and Rs 2,48,013/-on account of Peak Balance (A/c. No. 0169131000019 of Canara Bank, are directed to be deleted. Ground no. 3 raised by the appellant, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deep Nimawat but the entire details are missing in the Demand Promissory Note, Annexure A-23. Para 11. Similar is the position of Annexure A/24 Hypothecation Agreement running from Page 35 to 54 and this agreement is completely blank even the name of borrower, the account sanctioned details of hypothecation, details of stock, the rate of interest etc. is not mentioned. Even some of the pages are not signed and having seal of the defendants. Annexure A/25 is the Charges and hypothecation deed/agreement is signed by the defendants but again it do not bears the amount so sanctioned, the rate of interest etc. Page 4 Para 14- After having pursued the documents I am of the considered view that the demand promissory note and the hypothecation agreement at Annexure A/23 & A/24 are completely blank documents so, for this fault only the bank officers are responsible and not the borrower. Para 15. The blank agreement or a blank Demand Promissory note even though signed cannot be used for the purpose of recovery as it is not legally created and executed documents in the eye of law. Para 16. According this Original Application stand disposed of as dismissed. In view of above, we req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee referring to the order of the Director of Enforcement (ED) [APB-94] wherein the name of the firm run by Shri Bharat Bomb by using the KYC documents of the assessee and the same name of firm is referred in the order of the DRT. Thus, it is beyond doubt that Shri Bharat Bomb was using the KYC for making the fraud in the names of the various parties as referred in the order of the ED and the assessee is one of the parties mentioned at Sr.no. 4 out of the list of 44 parties mentioned in the order of the ED. The ld. AR of the assessee also drawn attention to the page 278 of the paper book wherein the reasons were recorded considering the statement of the assessee recorded. The relevant part of the reasons recorded by the revenue to re-open the case of the assessee is reiterated herein below which he read while arguing the case of the assessee: "Reasons recorded for re-opening of the case of Shri Bharat Bomb A. Y. 11-12. 2 This case was ...... xxxxxx Similarly, on perusal of "Individual Transaction Statment"(ITS) of Shri Pradeep Nimawat (PAN ADZPN1060H), it has been found that a sum of Rs. 1,09,65,000/- was deposited in cash in different dates, during the financial y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that is why even though the orders of the lower authority are exparty the matter be decided based on the above reasoning recorded by the ld. AO there is no meaning to sending it back to further clarification and the assessee be granted the justice based on the facts already available on record and which has been clarified investigated by Banks, DRT and Directorate of Enforcement and based on that the Shri Bharat Bomb is already in imprisonment. Considering that aspect of the matter the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the similar issue of related case has been decided by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri Nitin Parish in ITA no. 264/Jodh/2023. The ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the judgment of Shri Deepak Wahi wherein on the similar facts and circumstances it was held that Mr. Bharat Bomb operated these account and additions cannot be sustained in the hands of the assessee by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 08.09.2023(APB311). Finally the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee be taxed the salary income that he has stated as received in the statement recorded by considered as his income and rest of the addition made is neither income nor investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA/263/Jodhpur/2023 and ITA/264/Jodhpur/2023 in case of Nitin Parikh in which additions made in the hands of assessee is deleted which were made on similar facts and circumstances. j) Copy of Debt Recovery Tribunal Order in case of Canara Bank vs M.s Shrinath Traders (sole Proprietor Pradeep Nimawat) k) Copy of Statement of Pradeep Nimawat Recorded before ED/CBI l) Copy of Reasons Recorded for Assessment Year 2011-12 11.1 Even the ld. AR while recording the reasons for re-opening the case of Shri Bharat Bomb accepted the fact that Shri Bharat Bomb has deposited cash into his bank account and the same is duly submitted in the paper book filed by the assessee at page 278 wherein the ld. AO accepted the fact that and the same reads that; 5. I have carefully examined the facts of the instance case and also carefully pursued the relevant documents obtained from the concerned bank; i.e. bank statements, bank account opening forms, KYC etc., it is indeed true that Shri Bharat Bomb, the assessee found indulge in the Syndicate Bank scheme and has been sentenced to imprisonment on account of his indulgement of Syndicate Bank scam. On deep examination / verification of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anara Bank are directed to be deleted. Ground no. 3 raised by the appellant, regarding this issue is allowed. b) Categorically finding recorded by the ld. AO while re- opening the case of Shri Bharat Bomb wherein it has been accepted that the cash deposited in the case of the assessee [ Shri Pradeep Nimawat ] is done by Shri Bharat Bomb and not by the assessee. c) Finding of co-ordinate bench in the case of Nitin Parikh vs. DCIT in ITA No. 264/Jodh/2023 & ITA No. 263/Jodh/2023 dated 20.12.2023 having similar set of facts where in the co ordinate bench has in detailed held as under : "We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that the assessee is usually filing the return below taxable limit. Certainly in the impugned assessment year the assessee's income was raised due to mis- utilization of assessee's return by Mr. Bharat Bom, CA. The statement recorded by the CA, the report of the ED and also supported by the evidence is clearly indicated that the assessee has suffered fraud due mischievous act of his CA. Further, the practical view is taken by the Id. appellate authority in the case of Mr. Deepak Wahi. The appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
