9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the ld. CIT(A)), in respect of the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. Considering the common grounds of appeal and facts arising in the captioned appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee, we decided to hear all these appeals and cross objections together and are being adjudicated by a common order for the sake of brevity. 3. Grounds taken by the Revenue in appeal for Assessment year 2012- 13 and Cross Objections of the assessee for Assessment year 2012-13 are considered as lead year and are thus, reproduced hereunder:- ITA No. 8834/Del/2019 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uashed in the absence of any satisfaction being recorded by the AO of the searched person that the incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the course of the search. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions made under Section 153C are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the assessment order was passed alleging that the assessee did not file reply to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Naresh Kumar Jain (Jain Brothers), H. No. 151, Pocket-13, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi. In course of search and seizure operation, certain documents and hard disks were seized. In the said seized material, a ledger mentioning the name of the assessee, was found. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer of the searched persons recorded a satisfaction note in terms of section 153C of the Act implicating the assessee. After receiving the satisfaction note from the Assessing Officer of the searched persons, the Assessing Officer of the assessee has initiated proceedings under section 153C read with section 153A/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). In course of the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer verifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions of the assessee and the remand report, the Ld. CIT (A) found that the Assessing Officer himself, while making protective additions at the hands of the assessee, has stated that information of the beneficiaries has already been disseminated by Investigation Wing to the respective AO's for appropriate actions by the AO's of the beneficiaries. 5.1 Thus, the CIT (A) held that when the beneficiaries have been identified and the undisclosed income have to be added at their hands on substantive basis, the additions made on protective basis at the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. He further held that since the commission income has been added on substantive basis at the hands of Jain Brothers, the main entry provider, the same ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious concerns and transferred the same to the above mentioned companies/concerns immediately thereafter, and accordingly, appellant company is not beneficiary company. The above arrangement of funds is nothing but part of modus operandi of the accommodation entry provider to introduce the unaccounted funds of the beneficiaries in their respective bank accounts. Further, the AO also in the assessment order has observed that the appellant company was a conduit company operated by Sh. Naresh Jain and Anand Jain to provide accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and said beneficiaries have already been identified. Accordingly, when the beneficiaries are identified, the addition in such cases can at best be that of commission earned on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. As could be seen from the aforesaid observations of the Ld. CIT(A), since, the real beneficiaries, who have availed the accommodation entries were identified, the substantive additions have been made at their hands. That being the case, protective additions made at the hands of the assessee cannot survive. 11. While considering identical issue on similar facts, the companies, allegedly managed and controlled by Jain Brothers, the Coordinate Bench in the cases of DCIT Vs. M/s. Shivji Garments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and ACIT Vs. M/s. Zed Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) has upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition. 12. In the present cases, the facts are being identical, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
