TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of CIT(A) in respect of addition on account of accommodation entries after noting that assessee failed to negate the information based on enquiry conducted by DDIT(Inu.), Unit-4(3), Mumbai that they were non-genuine dealers and providing bogus accommodation entries?" 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the burden of proof cast on the assessee was of a very high degree and assessee failed to discharge this burden?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the allegation of the AO regarding payment of 1% commission expenses to the subcontractors and estimated the commission payment on the basis of assumptions?" 6. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) justified in considering the claim of additional deduction u/s 80-IA without appreciating the fact that the claim of the assessee is not allowable in view of the decision of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of 100% on account of alleged accommodation entries. 5. Briefly stated the underlying facts in the impugned issue are that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction and infrastructure development. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, on perusal of ITS details, the assessee was asked to furnish details in respect of transactions with Shri Arvind Kumar Goel, proprietor of M/s Kumar Enterprises, during the year under consideration. The requisite details were furnished by the assessee and on perusal of the same, the AO noticed that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 11,18,83,910/- on account of job work. As per the information received from the investigation authorities, the AO came to know that Shri Arvind Kumar Goel and its concern M/s Kumar Enterprises are accommodation entry providers without actually indulging in supply of items/work. Assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the transactions and was show-caused as to why the expenditure should not be treated as bogus. The assessee filed a detailed summary of payments, copies of ledger accounts, copies of bills, work order and copy of TDS certificates to prove the genuineness of the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, the bills were raised and payments have been made by the assessee through banking channels after deducting TDS. Having been convinced by the documentary evidences, ld. CIT(A) found that in the earlier AY 2010- 11, the AO himself has restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of subcontractor charges. Taking a leaf out of the earlier AY, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 15% of the total payments made to M/s. Kumar Enterprises. 6. Before us, the ld. D/R strongly supported the findings of the AO. Per contra the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench for AY 2011-12 wherein on identical set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench has restricted the disallowance to 15% of the total payments. 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and have considered the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench (supra). We find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1152/Mum/2024 and 1153/Mum/2024; AY 2011- 12, had the occasion to consider an identical issue on identical set of facts and held as under:- "9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this regard it would be relevant to refer to paragraph 6.5.(n) of the reassessment order, dated 31/12/2018 wherein the Assessing Officer has recorded as under: "It is interesting to note that the assessee has sub-contracted its work two M/s Kumar Enterprises and M/s Shivam Enterprises which is alleged bogus entry provider therefore if the work has been completed by the assessee company it is not a certain as to how and from whom the work was completed. The completion of work itself prove that the assessee has got were completed either on its own or from some other agencies whose sources of payments have not been disclosed. The above inference are drawn after considering the fact that M/s Kumar Enterprises and M/s Shivam Enterprises are shell companies engaged in providing accommodation entry only. Therefore, ........." (Emphasis Supplied) 9.2. Further, nothing has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to challenge the veracity of the documents (including completion certificates) placed on record by the Assessee. The CIT(A) has taken into consideration the fact that the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee are dismissed as not pressed in view of instructions received by the Learned Authorized Representative. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the Assessee are dismissed." 8. As no distinguishing decision has been brought to our notice, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, Ground Nos. 1 to 5 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 6 relates to the claim of additional deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. 10. On perusal of the orders of the authorities below we find that the AO has denied the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act because the said claim was not made in the original return of income and, therefore, drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 23 (SC) [2006], the claim of deduction was denied. 11. During the course of the appellate proceedings, the claim was reiterated and the ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO who in his remand report fairly conceded that the claim of deduction has been allowed in all subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) also allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. 12. Aft....