TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals and C.O. were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. The above captioned appeals of Assessment Years (hereinafter, the 'AY') 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 arise against the common order dated 08.12.2021 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 29, New Delhi [In short "Ld. CIT(A)"]. Against all appeals of the Revenue, the assessee has filed Cross Objections. 3. Grounds taken by the Revenue in appeal of AY 2012-13 and grounds taken in the C.O. of AY 2012-13 are considered as lead year and are thus, extracted here under: ITA No. 371/Del/2022, AY 2012-13: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under Section 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 order was passed by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) without disposing off the objections raised by the assessee company against the satisfaction note recorded. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nil 09.11.2017 16,95,73,376/- (16,91,50,500/- + 4,22,876/-) 4.1 These original ITRs were processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the 'Act'). Later on, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the 'AO'), based on information received from the AO of the searched person, recorded satisfaction and issued notices, under section 153C of the Act, for the above-mentioned AYs. In response to these notices, the assessee filed ITRs of the relevant years, on 04.12.2018, declaring the same income as shown in original ITRs. 4.2 Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain along with their business concerns & associates (Anand Kumar Jain & Naresh Kumar Jain Entry Operator Group) were searched, on 17.08.2018, un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp;5,06,28,300/- Rs. 8,62,00,764/- Rs. 4,06,67,346/- and Rs. 16,91,50,500/- in AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15 & 2017-18 respectively and taxed the same in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT (A) who allowed appeals of the assessee, for AYs 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 by deleting the entire additions either made on protective basis or substantive basis. 5. The Ld. CIT-DR, placing emphasis on the finding of the AO, prayed for upholding of the finding of the AO. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter, the 'AR') argued that the entire business of providing accommodation entries was controlled and managed by Shri Anan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e have heard both the parties at length. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR. The Tribunal, in the case of Zed Enterprises (P) Ltd., ITA No. 208 to 212/Del/2022 for AY 2012-13 to 2016-17, has held as under: "12. We have examined the ratio of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT (A) held that the AO in the assessment order has claimed to have identified the names of beneficiaries and already disseminated the information to the assessing officers of the beneficiaries and hence the credits received by the appellant cannot be treated as unexplained credit in its hands since, the said transactions are mere arrangement of funds/routing of unaccounted income of the beneficiaries to whom the said funds were transferred through the ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Sh. Naresh Jain were entry operators who were managing and controlling various shell concerns including the appellant for providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission and taking that logic there is no question of charging of commission income in the hands of the appellant company arises, since nothing has been earned by the company, being the shell concern. 15. Since, the commission already stands taxed in the hands of the entry operators in their individual capacity, no separate commission can be charged in the hands of the pass through/ companies floated by the entry operators. As the assessee is found to be one of such pass-through entity, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the comm....