TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,52,500/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act to @ 1% of Rs. 4,23,52,500/-. 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable of facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any ground(s) of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that notices through registered post for hearing of the appeal were issued to the assessee on 28/02/2018; 08/05/2018; 08/08/2018; 14/11/2018; 26/03/2019; 07/05/2019; 09/07/2019; 21/10/2019 and 20/11/2019. The notice was also served by affixture through the inspector of the Department on 29/11/2019. Despite notifying the date of hearing several times, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was filed. In the facts and circumstances, we were of the opinion that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, and accordingly we heard the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing arguments of the Departmental Representative. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he balance sheet. In absence of any authentic evidence, it is considered that this amount of Rs. 2302268/- was given by the assessee to M/s Aakriti international Inc out of its undisclosed source of income. Therefore, this amount of Rs. 2302268/- is added back in the taxable income of the assessee under the head assessee's income earned form undisclosed sources of income. From the above facts of the case, it has been established that the assessee has concealed the accurate particulars of its taxable income, therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) are separately initiated in this case. In this case, an information was also received from the Investigation Unit- 5, New Delhi. The Investigation Wing forwarded a list of persons involved in the activities of accommodation entries to different charges to take proper action against the persons who provided accommodation entries and also against the person who received these accommodation entries. The name of the assessee is also included in the list of entry providers. During the course of assessment proceedings on the basis of information available on record, copies of bank a/s statement of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee has concealed the accurate particulars of its taxable income, therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are separately initiated in this case. In this case assessee has not filed its audit report before the specified date in prescribed form duly signed and verified by an auditor as required u/s 44AS of the IT Act, therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271B are separately initiated in this case for the above default of the assessee company. With the above remarks, the total income of the assessee is computed as under: - Income from business or profession Taxable income as per return filed and processed u/s 143(1) Rs. 9890/- Addition/disallowances 1. Unexplained cash deposited in bank accounts u/s 68 (as discussed above) 4,23,52,500/- 2. Unexplained advance to Aakriti International Inc. (as discussed above) 23,02,268/- 3. Unexplained investment in shares (as discussed above) 15,00,000/- Rs. 4,61,64,658/- Total taxable income Rs. 4,61,64,660/- 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), no compliance was made by the assessee except relying on the other case of M/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is that the assessee has indulged in circular and multiple transaction, by layering, what can be taxed is the peak credit and that too at the first point is acceptable and should be the manner of determining the correct income. If each of the layer is brought our tax, then it would be case of levy of income tax, multiple no. of times, on the same amount. Such levy of double or multiple taxes is against law and it would be the right method of arriving at the correct amount of income. If income is taxed in the hands of Mr. Tarun Goyal, the taxed amount, when transferred to another company should be treated as explained credit. The multiple transfer of this amount should also be treated as explained. But the burden of proof lies on the assessee. 22. Admittedly certain assessment of Sh. Tarun Goyal, the kin pin are at various stages and have not reached the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, it would not be possible to have in over all view of the matter and eliminate chain /multiple transaction, for arriving at the correct assessable amount. Thus we have no other alternative but to set aside all these appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y gifts from any other company. Thus, it is clear that Sh. Mahesh Garg (Entry Provider) was that doing this paper business of receiving cash and giving cheques from purchase of shares, shared application money, loan, advance gift, to convert black money to white money in the form of Bogus Entry Provider. The Addl. DIT(Inv.) Unit-I, Jhandewalan, Delhi had taken a statement on 22.09.2003 from Sh. Mahesh Gupta, about his involvement as Entry Provider to different assessees in and around Delhi. Sh. Mahesh Garg had admitted his income from commission @ 0.5% and after getting some expenses, his net income was 0.4% of the amount of cheque/DD issued. Thus, the appellant company Director Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma admits he was helping Sh. Mahesh Garg in giving Bogus Cash Credits/Entry Provider activities. Considering the overall circumstances, and business of appellant company. I estimate net income of the company @ 1% of Rs. 4,23,52,500/- (which includes share application money of Rs. 15,00,000/- and loans and advances of Rs. 23,02,268/- = Rs. 4,23,525/- for this A.Y. 2003-04." 6.1 Though, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the statement of persons before the Investigation Wing ....