TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contain common grounds and facts; therefore, these appeals and COs were heard together and these are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Since similar grounds have been taken in all the above mentioned 09 appeals and 07 COs. Therefore, the appeal; ITA No. 6206/Del/2015 and CO No. 398/Del/2015 of Green Mark Infra Limited of AY 2007-08 are taken as lead cases. 3. Grounds raised by the Revenue in appeal of Green Mark Infra Ltd. of AY 2007-08, ITA No. 6206/Del/2015, read as under: "i. That the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting Rs. 3,95,32,500/- which was added to the income of the assessee on account of as unexplained deposits. ii. That the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting Rs. 15,35,000/- which was added to the income of the assessee on account of as unexplained liabilities. iii. That the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in relying on the submissions filed by the assessee which were inadequate, incomplete, not genuine, not reliable and already rejected by AO during the assessment stage. iv. (a) The order of the CIT(Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeal." 3.3 Grounds raised in the CO of Moderate Credit Corp. Pvt. Ltd. of AY 2007-08, CO No. 191/Del/2018, read as under: - "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3), more so when the same is passed without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 147 to 151 of the Act. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) inter alia on the following grounds: - * That there was no material on the basis of which the belief of escapement of income was formed. * That impugned reasons were recorded without independent and judicious application of mind of Ld. AO. * That the impugned case has been reopened without obtaining valid approval u/s 151 as per law. * That the reopening is barred by limitation as there is no allegation in the reason recorded about failure on the part of assessee in disclosing all material facts. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted assessments of the above-mentioned assessees under section 153C of the Act by adding certain sums as accommodation entries on protective basis. Aggrieved, the above-mentioned assessees filed petitions, under section 264 of the Act, before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi, who disposed of their petitions in their favour vide order dated 20.03.2014 by holding that since the said information had not been received by the AO from the Assessing Officer(s) of any searched person; therefore, the assessments completed under section 153C of the Act were not maintainable. Consequentially, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi annulled all assessments, completed under section 153C of the Act, of the abovementioned assessees. The relevant portion of the order passed under section 264 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi reads as under: - "Jurisdiction u/s 153C for assessing 6 years preceding the year in which search was initiated can be invoked only when impugned documents are seized u/s 132 or requisitioned u/s 132A. It cannot be invoked in the case of impounding of documents u/s 133A. The very foundation for instituti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of these assessees without verifying it demonstrated that impugned orders deserved to be set aside as these could not meet the end of justice as there was no detailed reasonings for agreeing with the assessees submissions. 6.1 The Ld. CIT-DR, quoting decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Developers & Company (2018) 91 taxman.com 306 and Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), submitted that the cases wherein there was no reference by the AO of the searched person could be reopened under section 148 of the Act after recording the satisfaction to do so. She contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Krishna Developers & Company, had held that the reopening on the basis of very same reasons on which the AO initially desired to make additions but failed, was justified, if the original assessment was declared as invalid as having been completed without service of the valid notice on the assessee. The initial assessments in these cases completed under section 153C of the Act wherein additions done on protective basis were annulled due to improper assumption of jurisdiction by the AO. Thus, the finding in annulled orders did not exist thereaft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be allowed. Further, it was brought to our notice by the Ld. CIT-DR that the Coordinate Bench in case of S. G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.403/Del/2015), Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6218/Del/2015 and Sushre Securities Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6225 & 6229/Del/2015 had not taken cognizance of the finding of this Tribunal in the case of Green Mark Infra Ltd. in ITA No.6206 to 6208/Del/2015 and therefore, this Tribunal had erred in holding that reopening was not valid. The Ld. CIT-DR vehemently argued these cases by distinguishing this Tribunal's decision in cases of S. G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Sushre Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 9. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on record. We find merit in the arguments of the Ld. CIT-DR. The relevant part of the Tribunal order, in the case of the assessee (Green Mark Infra Ltd.) in the ITA No.6206 to 6208/Del/2015, reads as under: "14. Coming to the appeal of the revenue where ground No. 1 and 2 are with respect to the addition of Rs. 39,35,32,500/- and Rs. 15,35,000/- the ld CIT DR vehemently submitted that it is responsibility of the person who deposits money in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount Communication (P) Ltd (2017-TIOL-253- HON'BLE SUPREME COURT -IT) ii. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd (2017) 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) 392 ITR 444. iii. Aradhna Estate P Ltd Vs. DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 iv. Pushpak Bullion P Ltd s. DCIT 85 taxmann.com 84 v. Ankit Financial Services Ltd Vs. DCIT 78 taxmann.com 58 vi. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd Vs.DCIT 83 taxmann.com 82 vii. Ankit Agrochem P Ltd Vs. JCIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 45 16. He further referred the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Shri CIT Vs. DK Garg in 404 ITR 757 to state that each debit and credit is required to be explained by the assessee. He further referred to decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Seema Jain Vs. ACIT 406 ITR 411 wherein, taxation of credit as income of assessee is justified. In view of this he submitted that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) required to be vacated. 17. He further referred to the decision of the Shri Raj Kumar Chawla Vs ACIT, New Delhi dated 26.09.2018 wherein, the issue with respect to the accommodation entry by Mr Asheem Gupta was discussed. He referred to para No. 11 of that order and stated that in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was made on account of misrepresentation made by Shri Asheem Kumar Gupta in his statement recorded vide question No. 5 during the course of survey. He mis-represented the fact that assessment in case of Shri Manoj Kumar has been assessed on this income on substantive basis whereas, in fact he was assessed on protective basis. The assessee has claimed before the ld CIT(A) with respect to the reopening of the assessment that the provision to section 147 to 151 of the Act are not complied with, however, no arguments were raised before the ld CIT(A) with evidences. However, it was argued that there was no fresh tangible material for reopening of the assessment was available with the ld AO but in fact the statement of Shri Asheem Kumar Gupta who is a director of the company that he has made the statement that he is providing accommodation entry is a tangible material for reopening of the assessment. It is the statement of the director of assessee company which was never retracted and in fact by arguing before lower authorities. So in turn, it was his tacit approval of his statement. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pebbal Investment and Finance Ltd Vs. ITO has held that statement u/s 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfessed that assessee company is providing accommodation entries, then, CIT(A) even did not care to verify that who are the beneficiaries and what is the amount of commission received by assessee from the beneficiaries from providing accommodation entries. Without even calling for all these details, the ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition. In view of this, we reverse the finding of the ld CIT(A) and confirm the order of the ld Assessing Officer with respect to the addition of Rs. 3,95,32,500/- for Assessment Year 2007-08. Accordingly, appeal of the ld Assessing Officer and its ground Nos. 1 is allowed accordingly. 24. With respect to ground No. 2 the ld AO noted that assessee has shown current liabilities of Rs. 15,35,000/- but has not given the confirmation of those parties. The assessee submitted before the ld CIT(A) that it received sum of Rs. 14 lakhs from Shreys Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd and San Portfolio Pvt Ltd of Rs. 1,35,000/-, however, no confirmation was provided of these parties. In view of this the addition has been made by the ld AO. The ld CIT(A) deleted the addition without even asking for the confirmation. We find that unless the assessee submits the confirmation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 of the ld AO is allowed. 29. Ground No. 2 of the appeal for both the years is on account of estimated profit on sale of investment by the assessee. The above addition has been made by the ld Assessing Officer purely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without making any enquiry whether the assessee has sold the investment at profit or at losses. There were no evidences also mentioned by the ld Assessing Officer for making the above addition. further, the addition is on estimate basis. Though the ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition with which he doe not agreed, however, for the reasons given by us above we direct the ld Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 4,35,320/- and Rs. 3,10,500/- for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal of the revenue for both the years is dismissed. 30. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 are partly allowed and CO filed by the assessee for both the years are dismissed. 31. Now it is evident that assessee is an entry operator and providing accommodation entries, so it is also clear that this company will have very scarce resource for payment of taxes therefore, the ld AO may inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f these cases for first time when the approvals under section 151 of the Act of these cases were sent by the AO through the Range Head to the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi. Since, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi was already seized with the facts of these cases from the date of initiation of the proceedings under section 264 of the Act. The said order under section 264 of the Act speaks volume about the application of mind. Only a person, after applying his mind, revises/rectifies himself. Thus, we do not find any merit, on this score, in the contention/argument of the Ld. Counsel. 13. Since assessments of these cases completed earlier under section 153C of the Act annulled by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central- II, New Delhi had attained finality; therefore, any finding of the AO in such annulled orders have no relevance. Further, consequential reassessment proceedings initiated in the above-mentioned cases were not due to any earlier proceedings barred by the limitation but against abinitio void proceedings under section 153C of the Act. Further, these are not the cases of regularization of time barred proceedings. It is ....