TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 22.08.20149 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the ld. CIT(A)), in respect of the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. Considering the common grounds of appeal and facts arising in the captioned appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee, we decided to hear all these appeals and cross objections together and are being adjudicated by a common order for the sake of brevity. 3. Grounds taken by the Revenue in appeal for Assessment year 2012- 13 and Cross Objections of the assessee for Assessment year 2012-13 are considered as lead year and are thus, reproduced hereunder:- ITA No. 8834/Del/2019 1. On the facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 153C and the assessment framed under Section 153C is bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any satisfaction being recorded by the AO of the searched person that the incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the course of the search. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions made under Section 153C are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ried out on 17.12.2015 at the residential premises of Sh. Kaushal Kumar, employee of Sh. Anand Kumar Jain and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain (Jain Brothers), H. No. 151, Pocket-13, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi. In course of search and seizure operation, certain documents and hard disks were seized. In the said seized material, a ledger mentioning the name of the assessee, was found. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer of the searched persons recorded a satisfaction note in terms of section 153C of the Act implicating the assessee. After receiving the satisfaction note from the Assessing Officer of the searched persons, the Assessing Officer of the assessee has initiated proceedings under section 153C read with section 153A/143(3) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, the Assessing Officer furnished a remand report. After examining all the facts and materials on record, the submissions of the assessee and the remand report, the Ld. CIT (A) found that the Assessing Officer himself, while making protective additions at the hands of the assessee, has stated that information of the beneficiaries has already been disseminated by Investigation Wing to the respective AO's for appropriate actions by the AO's of the beneficiaries. 5.1 Thus, the CIT (A) held that when the beneficiaries have been identified and the undisclosed income have to be added at their hands on substantive basis, the additions made on protective basis at the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. He further held that since the com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the Ld. CIT (A) has observed as under:- "6.4. From the above transactions, it is noticed that the appellant company has received funds from various concerns and transferred the same to the above mentioned companies/concerns immediately thereafter, and accordingly, appellant company is not beneficiary company. The above arrangement of funds is nothing but part of modus operandi of the accommodation entry provider to introduce the unaccounted funds of the beneficiaries in their respective bank accounts. Further, the AO also in the assessment order has observed that the appellant company was a conduit company operated by Sh. Naresh Jain and Anand Jain to provide accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and said beneficiaries ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ands of appellant company under the facts as discussed above. Therefore, the addition made on account of commission of Rs. 3,54,594/- is directed to be deleted." 10. As could be seen from the aforesaid observations of the Ld. CIT(A), since, the real beneficiaries, who have availed the accommodation entries were identified, the substantive additions have been made at their hands. That being the case, protective additions made at the hands of the assessee cannot survive. 11. While considering identical issue on similar facts, the companies, allegedly managed and controlled by Jain Brothers, the Coordinate Bench in the cases of DCIT Vs. M/s. Shivji Garments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and ACIT Vs. M/s. Zed Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) has uph....