TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the issues involved in all the appeals are identical except for the year and amount and the submission made by them in one case would be equally applicable to all the other cases. It was therefore submitted that all the appeals can be heard together. We therefore for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose of all the appeals by a consolidated order. We thus proceed with the facts in the case of IT(SS)A No. 181 & 102/AHD/2011 A.Y. 04-05. 4. A search operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in Radhe group of cases on 04.08.2006 including the Assessee. During the course of search various documents/other things were found and seized from the residence/business premises of the Assessee. During the search proceedings conducted at Radhe group of cases, it was discovered that Shri Ashish Patel of Radhe group was appointed by "Sahara group" of Lucknow for acting as mediator/negotiator for the acquisition of land by Sahara group. The usual methodology adopted was that Sahara group entered into separate MOU with mediator/negotiators for negotiating with the original land owners and procurement of Banakhat (land purchase documents). Sahara group of Lucknow used to se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avit it was admitted that commission was earned @ 1.5% of the total amount of bill raised. A.O therefore concluded that no development activity was actually carried out by the Assessee on any of the lands which was sold by Shri Ashish Patel to Sahara Group. He also concluded that all the expenses claimed by the Assessee against the receipt of Rs. 2,05,09,754/- were incorrect and bogus. He accordingly considered the entire amount of Rs. 2.05,09,754/- as income of the Assessee and also all the expenses claimed by the Assessee was disallowed in the absence of any documentary evidence which included Rs. 30 lac added on protective basis. On the aforesaid addition made, A.O vide penalty order dated 29.06.2009 levied penalty of Rs. 7,19,32,874/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of A.O in quantum proceedings, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the Assessee granted partial relief to the Assessee by holding as under:- 8. I have considered the submissions of the appellant. The uncontroverted facts of the case are that a search action u/s.132 of the Income-tax Act was carried out at the business premises of appellant on 04....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Sunderlal. In this way, do you accept that entire scheme of land development was nothing but a means of withdrawing cash amounts from the account of land developer entities. A.8 All the above mentioned 4 concerns, i.e. Rana Projects, Devi Durga, L.R. Construction and Anjani Construction, all were introduced to me by Shri Suderlalji which I have stated earlier also. Whatever payments have been made to these concerns, have been withdrawn in cash on behalf of Sahara and have been used as per instructions of Sahara. This work has been done by these four concerns after taking commission @ 1.5%. This it is clear that this scheme of showing the bills was that of Shri Sunderlalji and all the schemes of not doing real land development, issuing the bills, making the cash payments, etc. were the designs of Shri Suderlalji." 9. From the aforementioned facts, it is apparent that the role of the appellant is only "Havala giver" i.e. giving accommodation entries in the whole sequence of transactions. The appellant is an entity created for the purpose of a siphoning away substantial amount of funds received from "Sahara Group" under the guise of development expenses. In fact, appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant firm has received in cash only commission @1.5% of the total amount bills issued after deduction of TDS which forms part of the commission. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts of the firm u/s. 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without pointing out any specific defect or discrepancy therein. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the Assessing Officer, while computing the total income of the appellant has not considered all the evidences, statements, affidavits, material and other information gathered u/ss.132 and/or 133A of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings, search proceedings & post search period, assessment period as well as that forming part of the seized records etc. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the Assessing Officer has not considered the fact that the amount of total receipts for the development of the land etc. has been withdrawn on the same or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sition of the land by "Sahara Group". It was found that out of the money received from "Sahara Group" for purchase of land, Shri Ashish Patel or agents would pay a part of the amount received to the original land owners and the sale of the land documents would be registered in the name of Sahara Group and the substantial amount would be claimed as either land development expenses or banakhat expenses. In order to claim the development expenses on land purchased through Shri Ashish Patel (of Radhe Group), certain concerns (including the assessee) were created and they were paid, development charges in huge amounts through cheques and subsequently, the cash was withdrawn from the bank accounts of these concerns. These concerns, in turn, claimed bogus expenses, although no work was actually carried out for development of land. We find that CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the Assessee and the material on record has given a finding of fact that the role of Assessee was to give accommodation entries and it was only a "hawala giver" created for the purpose of siphoning away substantial amount of funds under the guise of development expenses. He has further given a finding that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(b) r.w.s. 143(3), penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 7,19,32,874/- was levied by the AO vide order dated 29.6.2009. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 03.12.2010, granted partial relief to the Assessee by holding as under:- 11. In the light of the above, the facts of the present case to be examined. In the present case, the appellant has admitted that it has debited bogus expenses in the accounts in the name of development expenses. The appellant used to receive cheques from Shri Ashish Patel and group and withdrew the equal amount of money from the bank accounts. In turn, the appellant used to get some commission in the entire transactions for providing accommodations entries. On paper, it was shown that appellant is receiving money for doing the development work. However, the facts remain that the appellant was abetting in the tax evasion. Considering the facts of the case, it is held to be fit case for the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to levy the penalty, @100% of the tax sought to be evaded. However, the concealed income should be determined as per app....