TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PER BENCH: All the above-captioned appeals of the above-mentioned Assessment Years (hereinafter, the 'AY') filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections (hereinafter, the 'CO') filed by the above-mentioned assessees 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 (Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nuine, not reliable and already rejected by AO during assessment stage. 4. (a) The order of the CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accommodation entries to Jiwan Realtors Ltd., Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd. SAM Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Moderate Credit Corp. Pvt. Ltd., S. G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Sushre Securities Pvt. Ltd., Shrey Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., etc. 5.1 Based on the above information, the AO initiated assessment proceedings in the above-mentioned assessees, under section 153C of the Act. Consequentially, he completed 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ries to Jiwan Realtors Ltd., Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd. SAM Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Moderate Credit Corp. Pvt. Ltd., S. G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Sushre Securities Pvt. Ltd., Shrey Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., etc. nor these assessees established the creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions/credits recorded in their books of accounts. The Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoning in few lines for agreeing with submissions 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 ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeals. However, assessees' COs to appeals in ITA No.6206 to 6208/Del/2015 were dismissed. Further, the Ld. CIT-DR contended that since these assessees had failed to bring any material on the records to contradict the findings of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee in ITA No.6206 to 6208/Del/2015; therefore, they had no case and thus, the above captioned COs had to be dismissed and the Revenue's appeals had to 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommodation entry and tax can be recovered from them u/s 226(3) of the Act and further the ld CIT(A) even did not care to even know that what is the commission charged by the entry operator assessee by providing accommodation entries. He therefore, submitted that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition without applying the law to the facts of the case. 15. The ld DR relied upon the following decisions: - i. PCIT Vs. Paramount 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Pvt. Ltd., f) M/s S. G. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., g) M/s Sushre Securities Pvt. Ltd. and h) M/s Shrey Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. 22. On the basis of the above information the assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Earlier in 153C assessment the additions were made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis and on substantive basis was made in the hands of Mr. Manoj Kumar who worked with Shri Asheem Gupta, a Chartered Accountant who was engaged in providing accommodation entries. The protective addition 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit and debit entries of the bank account and also the loans paid. The ld CIT(A) has blindfoldedly accepted the explanation of the assessee without giving any credence to the fact of the case that assessee company is an accommodation entry provider and unless the real beneficiaries are named by it, it cannot escape the taxation of the sum credited in its books of account. Further, in case of accommodation entry provided by the assessee, nature of such accommodation entries were also not shown before lower authorities by assessee. As assessee's director has confessed 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, for the similar reasons we dismiss both the cross objection for both the years filed by the assessee. 28. The revenue has challenged the deletion of the addition by the ld CIT(A) on account of unexplained deposits. We have already confirmed the order of the ld Assessing Officer reversing the order of the ld CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2007-08. For the similar reasons we also confirmed the addition on account of unexplained deposit for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 1 of the appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not only submitted detailed reports but also have assisted the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi during the course of proceedings under section 264 of the Act. These cases were not only being dealt by the AO, Range Head and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi for first time during the reopening proceedings and the approval sought under section 151 of the Act was an isolated action. There were many proceedings related to these assessees going on before them and they were fully aware of the facts of these cases. It is not that these Income Tax Authorities have come to know the facts of 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 ....