TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h credits u/s 68 of the Act. 4. That the CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the aforesaid addition of Rs. 7 lacs without appreciating that the appellant had discharged its onus in terms of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 3. Ground No. 1 is not pressed, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Vide Ground No. 2, the grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 11,77,528/- on account of income from house property and vide Ground Nos. 3 & 4, the assessee is aggrieved by the sustenance of addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- made by the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. The facts related to these issues in brief are that a search and seizure operation was carried out at various premises of M/s Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The assessee company is one of the associated companies of Today group of cases. The AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2012. In response to the same, the AO did not file its return of income. The AO made the impugned addition by observing in paras 5 to 8 as under: "5. During the course of search and seizure proceedings at the residentia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee during the financial year 2004-05 relevant to the assessment year 2005-06 fails to pass the test of genuineness within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act. 7. Further during the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2009-10, it was seen that the assessee is one of the co-owner of the property at 48 Friends Colony East, New Delhi in along with other group concerns namely M/s Takshila Distributors Pvt Ltd; M/s Rancho Place Estate Pvt. Ltd. The assessee owns 28.24% of the share in the property at 48 Friends Colony East, New Delhi and this property of the assessee company at 48, Friends Colony East, New Delhi. Further it was noticed that this property was being used by Gambhirs for their residence and was not being used by the assessee as well as the other group concerns for the purpose of their own business or profession, therefore, as per the provision of section 23 of the Act, the sum for which the whole of property at 48, Friends Colony East, New Delhi, might reasonably be expected to be let out was determined at Rs. 41,69,718/-. 8. During the FY 2004-05 also the property of the assessee at 48 Friends Colony East, New Delhi was being used by Gambhirs for their residence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y way of issuing notice U/s 133(6) or by deposing some person on job or by any other way he deems fit. However, he never tried to fulfill his job and simply copy pasted the reasons in the assessment order and made addition in a tailor made fashion. Thus, without making/applying his own mind and without making his own enquiries, addition merely on the basis of information from ADIT(INV) is invalid and needs to be deleted. SMT. MEERA KAPOOR VS. C1T (ITA NO. 1395/2008) DECIDED VIDE ORDER DTD. 31.08.2012 (DELHI HIGH COURT) CIT VS. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. 233 CTR (DEL.) 69 DIT VS. MRS. RAINEE S1NGH 125 TTJ (DEL) 816 (AFFIRMED BY HIGH COURT IN (2009) 30 DTR (DEL) 105 /330 ITR 417 (DEL.) THIRD, that AO had relied only on the basis of information, statements and documents received from third party, i.e. Jain brother's, investigation proceedings. Further AO had relied on some backside of page 13 in annexure A - 34 from Jain brother documents. The third party statements and the documents seized from their possession, which were being used against the assessee, were never being confronted to the assessee company at any time during the stage of assessment proceedings. Thus, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is an owner. OTHER THAN SUCH PORTIONS OF SUCH PROPERTY AS HE MAY OCCUPY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to tax, shall be chargeable to income (ax under the head Income from house property. . In other words to charge the income U/H house property the property should not be used for its business or profession. However, in our case it was outrightly stated before Id. AO that the said property was being used for the registered office of the assessee company. To support our contention we had filed the following details before LD AO:- Ø Copy of bank A/c Ø Copy of ITR filing acknowledgement. Ø Copy of TAN allotment letter. Ø Copy of From 18 showing registered address of the company. That we wish to put some light on one of the factor that should be taken due care while judging the provisions U/s 23 in our case is that the assessee company is using the said co-owned premises for their registered office address, from where all statutory compliances were made by the company. However, actual occupation by the company is not relevant and the work ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the absence of standard rent and actual rent.) We rely on following judgements:- ACIT VS. MAYUR RECREATION AND DEVELOPMENT LTD. 301 ITR (AT) 324 (SB) (DEL.) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case CIT VS. MON1 KUMAR SUBBA 333 ITR 38 (DEL) (FB) TYPOGRAPHY IN ITA NO. 1213 OF 2011 DTD. 08.08.2014 has followed the decisions of Delhi High Conn staled above. PARKPAPER INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (2008) 25 SOT 406 (MUM.) SATYA COMPANY LTD. 140 CTR (CAL.) 569 FOUR, that no basis had been provided for calculating the annual value / rental income of the said property. It is purely on the basis of information he had and no further. FOUR, that no basis had been provided for calculating the annual value / rental income of the said property. It is purely on the basis of information he had and no further enquiries made by the AO on his own and no new facts brought on record to reach at correct facts. He even failed to look into the fact submitted by the assessee. SMT. MEERA KAPOOR VS. CIT (ITA NO. 1395/2008) DECIDED VIDE ORDER DTD. 31.08.2012 (DELHI HIGH COURT). CIT VS SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. 233 CTR (DEL.) 69 DIT VS. MRS. RAINEE SINGH 125 TTJ (DEL) 816 (AFFIRMED BY HIGH COURT IN (2009) 30 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. also does not help the appellant as M/s. Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. itself is a dummy/paper company of Today group. Further. I do not agree with the arguments of Ld. AR that the appellant has discharged its primary onus by filing document evidence in support of transaction with M/s. Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. as the basic findings in that the amount received by the appellant is an accommodation entry which has been obtained by paying cash to Jain Brothers through dummy concern of Jain Brothers and dummy concern of Today group namely, M/s. Golden Tenchnobuild (P) Ltd. Under these circumstances, reliance of Ld. AR on various judicial pronouncement given on different facts do not held the appellant. In fact entire chain of fund flow through various layers of fund transfer through bank accounts of dummy/paper companies are nothing but colourable device to cover the actual transactions. I rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of:- i) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO (1985) 154 1TR 148 (SC) ii) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 Ld. AR's argument that the addition made by the assessing officer on the basis of mere enquiry by ADIT(Inv.) cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for Gambhir's Residence exclusively or partly used for the residence of Gambhirs and partly used for business of these company. On this issue, I have perused the evidences contained in the assessment order. During the search, statement of Sh. Vinay Subhikhi, Vice President of the group was recorded u/s 132(4) of I.T. Act. 1961 who have stated that these four owner of 48, Friend's Colony are not doing any business. These four companies just own one asset namely 48, Friends Colony, New Delhi which is used as residences by Mr. G.K. Gambhir and Sh. R.K. Gambhir, main person of Today group. This portion of statement is reproduced in the assessment order. In view of this categorical statement recorded u/s 132(4) by the Vice-President of the group, I do not think that there is any confusion that entire property at 48. Friend's colony is used by Gambhir for residential purposes. Neither the appellant nor the Ld. AR has filed any evidence contrary to the statement of Vice- President of the group. Ld. AR's argument that Gambhir's have used only a portion for residential purposes cannot be accepted as the lease agreement in support of such contention was not produced fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said documents established the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, addition made u/s 68 of the Act was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: ØCIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal (P.) Ltd. 30 Taxmann.com 328 (Del.) ØCIT Vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 361 ITR 220 (Del.) 11. It was further stated that the aforesaid amount was received by the depositor M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. from a company of Jain brothers and the addition of the same had already been made in the hands of M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. for the assessment year 2005- 06, vide assessment order dated 28.03.2013 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). It was accordingly submitted that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. 12. As regards to the another addition of Rs. 11,77,528/- on account of income from house property, it was stated that the assessee is having 28.24% shares in the property situated at 48, Friends Colony East, New Delhi, which was used for the business purposes and the assessee's registered office is situated in the said property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved the impugned amount, the said fact is evident from the copy of assessment order dated 28.03.2013 for the assessment year 2005-06 in the hands of M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. Therefore, on that score alone, the addition made in the hands of the assessee is not justified particularly when the source of the source was proved and the tax has already been charged on the impugned amount. Furthermore, the assessee furnished the copy of confirmation from M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd., which is placed at page no. 3 of the assessee's paper book wherein the said company in its confirmation dated 1st April, 2005 clearly stated that an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was given to the assessee vide cheque no. 221584 dated 20.02.2005. The creditor, M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. is assessed to tax and filed its return of income for the year under consideration (copy of the acknowledgment is placed at page no. 33 of the assessee's paper book). The assessee also furnished the copy of bank statement of the company M/s Golden Technobuild (P) Ltd. which is placed at page nos. 45 to 47 in the said copy of bank account, the aforesaid entry of Rs. 7,00,000/- on 22.02.2005 is reflected. In the present ....