TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1744
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 29.11.2022 passed in case no. 10452, involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. 319/Del/2023 for AY: 2015-16 ACIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram Sahil Tradewell Marketing Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon's order dated 29.11.2022 passed in case no. 10459 involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. 320/Del/2023 for AY: 2016-17 ACIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram Sahil Tradewell Marketing Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon's order dated 29.11.2022 passed in case no. 10468 involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. 321/Del/2023 for AY: 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram Sahil Tradewell Marketing Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon's order dated 29.11.2022 passed in case no. 10478 involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 6. 3968/Del/2014 for AY: 2012-14 DCIT, Central Circle-05, New Delhi Smt. Saroj Bhatia CIT(A)-24, New Delhi's DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1065646594(1) & order dated 14.06.2024 involving proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessees's behest. They are accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. We wish to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Ray K Shah in order to infer that the Department came to know that the appellant was providing accommodation entries consequent to search proceedings carried out. In the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act before the AO, Shri Atul Tyagi admitted that various concerns floated by him were not carrying out any business activity, no sale/ purchase were being made through such concerns. During demonetization period (08.11.2016 to 30.11.2016), he accepted that he used to deposit cash from different persons in his bank accounts and transfer the same to such persons through RTGS/Cheques/NEFT after charging his commission. The AO had made analysis of various concerns floated by him for this purpose wherein cash has been deposited during Demonetization period. The AO has shared information in respect of the beneficiaries with their respective AOs for taking action as per provision of the Act In such cases. It is relevant to mention here that the appellant vide letter dated 08.06.2017 has declared unaccounted income of Rs. 50 lacs, though the said disclosure was not complied with. One such beneficiary Shri Gautam Gupta Prop. M/s Ajanta Oversea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved that substantive additions were made by the AO in the case of Shri Atul Tyagi on account of commission income earned by the appellant by providing bogus accommodation entries for various assessment years. The AO further made the above additions on account of bogus accommodation entries in the case of the appellant on protective basis. The appellant is one of the companies run by Shri Atul Tyagi who was the director. It has been admitted by Shri Atul Tyagi in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act under oath on 10.04.2017 and 09.08.2018 that he has been operating all the bank accounts in his name or his family members or other concerns where he was the director including the appellant. It was explained by him that names of his family members and other companies including the appellant have been used by him whereas they do not have any relation with such accounts. The AO has also held in his order that Shri Atul Tyagi was operating all such bank accounts and therefore the AO has made addition in the hands of Shri Atul Tyagi on substantive basis in respect of commission income earned by providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through layring of transaction of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oated by the appellant with various beneficiaries. The onus was upon the appellant to substantiate genuineness of business activities carried out by him through various prap concerns in his name. Such onus has not been discharged The findings of the AO have been independently corroborated with the admission made by the various beneficiaries. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not make any submissions in support of various grounds of appeals taken against the quantum addition made. Keeping in view above facts and discussion, it is found that there is merit in the findings of the AO that the appellant has been in the business of providing accommodation entries and has earned unaccounted commission. The rate of commission adopted by the AD was on the basis of statement of various beneficiaries who have stated that Shri Atul Tyagi has taken commission @ 10% to 12% against such accommodation entries. Therefore the inferences drawn by the AO are based upon independent evidence gathered, which have been confronted to the appellant. Adequate opportunity of being heard has been provided to the appellant during the assessment and appellate proceedings. It is relevant to me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessee on SUBSTANTIVE basis resulting into double taxation. 4.1.4 In Ground No. 4, the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer has made additions which are not correct on the basis of facts and records available. 4.1.5 In Ground No. 5, the appellant has contended that on the basis of above grounds addition of income made in the income of the Assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 may kindly be deleted. 4.1.6 In Ground No. 6, the appellant has contended that alternatively the case of the Assessee may kindly be adjourned sine die till the case of husband of Assessee Mr. Ram Prakash Bhatia is decided. 4.1.7 Since Ground Nos. I to 6 deals with similar issues, all the grounds have been adjudicated together in the following paras. 4.1.8 A survey u/s 133(A) was carried out on appellant's husband Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia on 08.08.2014. During the course of survey his statement was recorded u/s 131(1A) of Income Tax Act wherein he mentioned that he had been carried out the work of billing and was earning commission income. He stated that he has been doing the work of providing accommodation entries and bogus bills. As per his statement, the appellant's husband categori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant's husband could not provide the names and addresses of the entities, whose cash was apparently deposited in this bank account. In view of these findings, the CIT(A) decided that the Assessing Officer did not commit any error in considering the cash deposited in the bank account amounting to Rs. 8,71,25,010/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Income Tax Act in the hands of Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia on substantive basis. Herein, total deposits of Rs. 8,21,25,010/- included amount of Rs. 3,09,83,921/- which was deposited in Appellant's account. 4.1.13 Since, this issue has been considered in the appellate order of appellant's husband Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia by the CIT(A). Since the very source of such cash which was deposited in this bank account is not known, it was considered appropriate to presume that it is Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia's money deposited by him or through his sources in the bank account of M/s. Chaudhary & Co. in the name of his wife Smt. Saroj Bhatia. The CIT(A) was of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer did not commit any error in considering the cash deposited in the bank account amounting to Rs. 3,09,83,921/- as unexplaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the hands of the appellant's husband. 4.1.16 As held in previous paras, it will not be appropriate to continue with the protective addition when the substantive addition has already been confirmed in the hands of appellant's husband at first appellate stage. In view of the discussion in the above paragraphs the additions made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis are deleted. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 6 of appeal are allowed." 6. It is in this factual backdrop that learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that both the CIT(A) herein have erred in law and on facts in deleting the corresponding protective additions despite the fact that they had been rightly made in these twin assessees' hands. And that hon'ble apex court in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC) has settled the issue long back that when there arises a doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer that a particular income might be taxable in more than one assessee's hands, he could indeed make such protective addition so as to protect the interest of the Revenue as per 'ex-abundat cautela" i.e. as a matter of abundant caution. We now advert to the Revenue instant identical sole substantive grievan....