TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ming an addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 made by the assessing officer in his order passed u/s 147/143(3). 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law by confirming an addition of Rs. 4,35,000/- u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 made by the assessing officer in his order passed u/s 147/143(3)." 3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, return of income was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2008 declaring the loss of Rs. 27,360/-. The case was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Subsequently, information was received by AO from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee is beneficiary of taking accommodation entries of Rs. 35,00,000/- i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of business of Praveen Kumar Jain and AO concluded that assessee has not discharged its onus and the entire amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- is liable to be added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The AO also noted that since the assessee had arranged accommodation entries of the amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- from Praveen Kumar Jain group of companies, the commission @ 3% of the total sum was taken by the entry providers. Hence, AO added 3% for arranging bogus transaction amounting to Rs. 4,35,000/- and added the same under section 69C of the Act. 4. Upon assessee's appeal, ld. CIT (A) considered the issue and confirmed the AO's order. While doing so, he observed that assessee company is different from public limited company. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities below. He further submitted that in the Investigation Wing information, what was found against the assessee was not provided to the assessee. Further, he submitted that only three companies were mentioned by the Investigation Wing. However, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that other companies were not at all mentioned in the bogus entry providers list. He further submitted that assessee has asked to cross-examine Praveen Kumar Jain but this request was not granted. He further submitted that ld. CIT (A) was wrong when he mentioned that AO has issued summons to the concerned parties. He submitted that only assessee was requested to produce the Directors at the fag end of the assessment. Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. However, for other five companies, there is no allegation of bogus entry providing by the Investigation Wing. AO has noted that assessee has submitted all the documents as called for. In this regard, we note that with respect to these companies, assessee has provided the following chart and also attached details with the paper book filed before us :- Sr.No. Nature of Documents 1. Acknowledgement of Return of Income and computation of total income for the A.Y. 2008-09 along with Financial Statement 0of the assessee for the A.Y. 2008-09 2. Ledger Copy along with Bank Statement of assessee reflecting the payment received for share application money 3. M/s. Hema Trading Private Ltd. 3.1 Ledger confirmatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8.1 Ledger confirmation 8.2 Bank Statement Highlighting the transactions 8.3 Acknowledgement of return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09 8.4 Financial Statements as at 31.03.2008 8.5 Share application form and board resolution 9. Submissions made before the Learned Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings 10. Submissions made before the Learned CIT (A0 during the course of appellate proceedings. 11. Form 2 for shares allotted. 9. We find that all the documentary evidences were duly provided to the AO. AO did not offer any examination of these documents and did not mention even a single adverse point in the financials of these companies. His ....