TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....odation entries received from the entities M/s. Krishna Enterprise and M/s. Radhe Corporation despite the fact that the proprietor of these entities Shri Harshit M. Purohit has himself admitted in his statement recorded on oath u/s. 131 of IT Act that all the business concerns in his name are paper concerns and do not carry out any kind of sale/purchase of goods and the bank accounts of those concerns are operated by Shri Sanjay Tibrewal for proving accommodation entry only. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the company filed return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs. 20,83,680/-. Subsequently, a search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 12.04.2019 in the case of Shri Sanjay Tibrewal. Shri Sanjay Tibrewal is known to be engaged in providing accommodation entries to various persons such as issuing cheques in lieu of cash and vice-versa, providing cash loans etc. During the search action, various documents relating to financial transactions were found and seized, statements of various key employees of group were taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y details during the course of appellate proceedings and after going through the details, it is seen that this is only a transaction of short term loans advanced through banking channels and the amount was received back by the assessee on 30.01.2013 of Rs. 5,50,000/- and on 14.03.2013 of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thus the entry was already squared off in the books of accounts during the current FY, therefore, this does not amount to any accommodation entries. Moreover, the AO did not bring any specific evidence such as cash voucher/cash receipts relatable to the assessee company in the search premises of Sanjay Tibrewal to authenticate that the above accommodation entry was taken in lieu of cash. Thus, on the basis of superficial information, the AO proceeded to make addition which is not warranted. Accordingly, addition to the extent of Rs. 7,50,000/- is hereby deleted. 4(b) As regards to the entry pertaining to M/s. Radhe Corporation amounting to Rs. 21,25,550/-, the assessee categorically denied that the company has not entered into any such transactions with M/s. Radhe Corporation. However, the AO mentioned that" the assessee received funds from M/s. Radhe Corporation from its Bank of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was given by the assessee company on 22.11.2012 to M/s. Krishna Enterprises and the same was received back from M/s. Krishna Enterprises by the assessee through banking channels on 30.01.2013 and 14.03.2013. As per the assessee, this transaction represented a short term advance given by the assessee to M/s. Krishna Enterprises through banking channels and within a short period of time the amount was received back by the assessee on 30.03.2013 (Rs. 5,50,000/-) and 14.03.2013 (Rs. 2,00,000/-). Therefore, it is seen that the entry was also squared off in the books of accounts during the same Financial Year itself. Further, we are of the considered view that given the aforesaid facts, Ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that the Assessing Officer did not bring on record any specific evidences to show as to how, in the instant facts, there was any evasion of any taxes by the assessee. On perusal of the ledger account of M/s. Krishna Enterprises and also bank statement of the assessee company during the impugned year under consideration, it is seen that the entire amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- advances by the assessee was received back by the assessee company, within the same Financial Year. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. C.O. No. 01/Ahd/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14) 11. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing of his Cross Objection No. 01/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14. Accordingly, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 is being dismissed as not pressed. 12. In the result, the appeal by the Department and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are both dismissed for A.Y. 2013-14. Now we shall take up the Department's appeal for A.Y. 2019-20 13. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal: "(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,53,671/- out of RS. 41,43,671/- u/s 68 made by AO on account of accommodation entries received from the entities M/s. Narayana & Company, M/.s Radhika & Brothers and M/s. Hanuman Fabrics which are controlled by Shri Sanjay Tibrewal despite the fact that the assessee has failed to establish as to why these parties have taken recourse of M/s. Narayana & Company, M/s. Radhika & Brothers and M/s. Hanuman Fabrics as a supposed mediator party for payment and the assessee has also failed to furnish documentary evidences like agreement/order, godown space/rent, tra....