9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestions of law have been framed:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of CIT (A) who had deleted the addition made by the AO on account accommodation entries after detailed examination and verification of facts and law? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. ITAT was justified upholding the decision of in ignoring the fact that all the transactions which were made by the Accommodation Entries providers to which the assessee was one of the beneficiaries were sham transactions and used as a colorable device and generation of documentary evidence for converting unaccounted money into tax exempt income? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion money, unsecured loans, long term capital gains, short term capital gains etc. in lieu of cash received by him. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to him on 10th November 2014 for initiating the reassessment proceedings on the ground of escapement of income to the tune of Rs.2,90,00,000/-. On completion of the assessment under section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the total income assessed was Rs.3,75,06,610/- by making additions on account of bogus share application money and commission for bogus accommodation entries. 5. The assessment order dated 22nd March 2016 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was challenged by the respondent by filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any other person for obtaining accommodation entries from M/s Ganesh Spinners Ltd., M/s Emplis Projects Ltd., M/s Speciality papers Ltd., M/s Dhanus Technologies Ltd. And M/s Sanguine Media Ltd. in the form of share application money of 3,00,00,000/- either in the assessment proceeding or remand furnished before the CIT(A) or before us. On similar facts, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly relied on the decision delivered by the ITAT Jodhpur vide its order dated 08.02.2018 in the case of M/s PSM Realmart Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.321/Jodh/2017) on and the Coordinate bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nishit Fincop. P.Ltd. (ITA No.15/Del./2010) where the addition made u/s 68 has been deleted. The ld. CIT(A) further relied upon the decision of Jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t if a question of law has been settled by the highest Court of the country that question, however important and difficult it may have been regarded in the past and however large may be its effect on any of the parties, would not be regarded as substantial question of law. The expression 'substantial question of law' has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd." AIR 1962 SC 1314 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be to find out whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shirish Chandrakant Shah are not genuine and there are only paper transaction took place instead of actual transactions. Although the transactions are completed through banking channel after getting commission in case. Therefore, share application money of Rs.3,00,00,000/- shown by the assessee is treated as diversion of profits to evade the tax liabilities. Therefore, the amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1) (c) are initiated for concealing income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Addition: Rs.3,00,00,000/- 7. Shirish Chandrakan Shah in his statement has admitted that "rate of commission varying between 2.5% to 5% on the total benefits provided to the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given before the Assessing Officer. Even otherwise, an admission by the assessee cannot be said to be a conclusive piece of evidence. The admission of the assessee in absence of any corroborative evidence to strengthen the case of the Revenue cannot be made the basis for any addition. Therefore, the substantial questions of law framed by the appellant pertained to an open issue which stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; one such decision was rendered in "M/s Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala And Another" (1973) 19 ITR 18. 12. Therefore, we hold that no substantial question of law arises between the parties and while so, the present Income Tax Appeal is not maintainable. 13. For the foregoing r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
