TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant that the assessing officer has issued notice under section 148 without application of mind. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not sustaining the contention of the appellant that the re-opening u/s 147 of the Act is of a completed assessment after expiry of four years. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not sustaining the contention of the appellant that the objections for re-opening filed on 05.04.2018 and 13.11.2018 have not been considered and the assessing officer has mentioned in the assessment order that no objections to the re-opening were filed until 28.08.2018. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition made by the assessing officer on account of treating the sale proceeds received from M/s. Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 19.06.83,165/- ignoring the evidences filed by the appellant. 6. That the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not sustaining the contention of the appellant that the learned Assessing Officer has not confronted the appellant with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....came to be passed on 31/12/2018 u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 147 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 19,06,83,165/- considering the alleged sale of properties as bogus u/s 68 of the Act and also made addition of Rs. 38,13,663/- as commission at 2% for providing accommodation entries to various parties. Similar additions have also been made for Assessment Year 2012-13 of Rs. 17,53,76,931/- u/s 68 of the Act and Rs. 37,07,539/- as commission paid to the parties u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 31/12/2018 and 26/12/2019 respectively for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13, Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 12/06/2023 dismissed both the Appeals filed by the Assessee. As against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present Appeals. 5. Ground No. 1 of the Assessee is general in nature which requires no adjudication. 6. In Ground No. 2 and 3, the Assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 & 148 of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is without application of mind and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adelink Private Limited was one of such paper/shell company which was operated by entry operator namely Sh. Jagdish Prasad Purohit. Sh. Jagdish Prasad Purohit in his statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act admitted that companies in which he and his family are directors are merely shell/paper companies controlled and managed by him through dummy directors and these paper/shell companies has been incorporated for the sole purpose of providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus billings/ share capital/unsecured loan/bogus LTCG/bogus STCL etc. The appellant company had received an amount of Rs. 3,48,00,000/- during the FY 2010-11 from M/s STPL. Sh. DhruvaJha in his statement recorded on oath on 21.01.2015 admitted that his email id was used by Sh. Jagdish Prasad Purohit and Sh. Sushil Kumar Purohit for filing ITRs of M/s STPL. Sh. Jagdish Prasad Purohit in his statement recorded on oath on 21.01.2015 admitted that M/s STPL. was managed and controlled by him. Sh. Sushil Kumar Purohit who was director of M/s STPL from 07.08.2000 to 04.02.2011 in his statement recorded on oath on 21.01.2015 admitted that M/s STPL was used for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance company were bogus as said company was engaged in providing accommodation entries, it being a fresh information, therefore A.O. was justified in initiating reassessment proceeding in case of assessee. (b) In the case of Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT[2017] 84 taxmann.com 300 (SC)/[2017] 250 Taxman 100 (SC), 2017-TIOL- 253-SC-IT, the SLP of assessee was dismissed, wherein in the said case information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was held to be 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. (c) In the case of Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. Vs DCIT[2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat)/[2017] 249 Taxman 568 (Gujarat)/[2018] 405 ITR 512 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble Gujarat High court had held that where reassessment was made on basis of information received from Principal DIT (Investigation) that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries by way of share application provided by a third party, same was justified. (d) In the case of V3S Infratech Ltd. Vs ACIT [2019] 104 taxmann.com 403 (Delhi -Trib.), the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi had held t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il 28/08/2018. Thus, sought for allowing the Ground No. 4. 14. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the reasons were supplied to the Assessee vide letter dated 12/07/2018. The Assessee has not filed any objection. Thereafter A.O. issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 28/08/2018 which is after 46 days of providing reasons for reopening. Thereafter the Assessee filed objection after 124 days from the date of supplying the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessee deliberately filed the objection at the fag end of the assessment proceedings. The said objection has been decided by the A.O. in the final assessment order, therefore, the Ground No. 4 of the Assessee requires to be dismissed. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The A.O. vide letter dated 12/07/2018, supplied the reasons for reopening to the Assessee, in the reply of the Assessee dated 05/04/2018, the Assessee has not filed any specific objection on reopening of the case. Thereafter A.O. issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 28/08/2018 after 46 days of providing the reasons for reopening to the Assessee with a bonfide belief that the Assessee has no objec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 shops in Raheja Mall situated at Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurugram, Haryana to M/s Sagar Trtadelink Private Limited vide agreement to sell dated 17/08/2012 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 36,56,48,734/-. Out of the total sale consideration, part payment of Rs. 19,06,83,163/- was received in Assessment Year 2011-12 and remaining amount of Rs. 17,53,76,931/- in the Assessment Year 2012-13. The details of 20 shops sold and amount so received are as under:- SI. No. Shop No. Amount received (In Rs. ) during FY 2010-11 1 LG-001, Raheja Mall 26800000 2 LG-011, Raheja Mall 8000000 3 LG-012, Raheja Mall 7762962 4 LG-048, Raheja Mall 22745086 5 UG-048, Raheja Mall 21386368 6 F-101, Raheja Mall 21500000 7 F-107, Raheja Mall 5180726 8 F-lll, Raheja Mall 8045919 9 F-112, Raheja Mall 8049919 10 T-309, Raheja Mall 4250458 11 T-310, Raheja Mall 5221213 12 T-311, Raheja Mall 5221213 13 T-312, Raheja Mall 5221213 14 S-201, Raheja Mall 14189914 15 S-208, Raheja Mall 1024140 16 S-209, Raheja Mall 6248762 17 S-213, Raheja Mall 5590125 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r not to get sale deed executed in their favour? Further, the sub Registrar, Gurgaon vide reply dated 26/12/2018,confirmed that no sale had been registered in the name of M/s Amphibious Finvest Pvt. Ltd (formerly M/s Sagar Trtadelink Private Limited) and no physical position of the property was handed over. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on its merits by examine the entire material on record in following manners:- "Now question comes, when entire payment was made by FY 2011- 12, itself then: i. Why physical possession of shops were not handed over till 31.03.2015. ii. Why conveyance/sale deed was not registered in the name of M/s STPL. iii. What was the source of funds for purchase of shops amounting to Rs. 36,56,48,734/- through share capital. 7.10 Sh. NavinRaheja (who is managing director of M/s Raheja Developers Pvt. Ltd.) and Mr. NirmalRaheja had been appointed as a Non-executive directors of M/s STPL from 21.01.2010 Le. FY 2009-10. Same was ascertained by the AO from Form 32 filed under the Companies Act, 1956 by M/s STPL and this information is available in public domain (placed at page 14 & 15 of the assessment order). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same day as receipt. There are no real transactions in the bank account statements. This bank account has reflects transactions with other bogus entities like Natraj Vinimay Ltd., Sirpur marketing Ltd., etc. Which further corroborate that this bank account was utilized for the purpose of providing accommodation entries. 4. Sh. Navin Raheja (Managing Director of Raheja Developers Pvt. Ltd.) and NirmalRaheja has been appointed as a Non-executive Directors from 21.01.2010 in Sagar Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Navin Raheja is the biggest Shareholder in Sagar Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. holding substantial shares. The Managing director of Raheja Developers (Seller) is the Director and Largest Shareholder of the paper company Sagar Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. (Buyer). It is noteworthy to mention here that Sh. Navin Raheja was appointed as the Director in SagarTradelinks just prior to the transfer of funds from Sagar Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. 5. Based on the above facts and circumstances, it is concluded that the entire transaction scheme is bogus, Raheja Developers has transferred its unaccounted funds through Sagar Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. in the garb of sale of shops. It is again mentioned tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment to Sell having been executed and that the mutation having been taken place in the municipal records. Therefore, registered conveyance/sale deed is not mandatory in this case to establish. 7.17.1 However, same is not found to be correct as M/s STPL had paid huge amount of Rs. 36,56,48,734/- for purchase of 20 shops at Rajeha Mall. Neither conveyance / sale deed was registered nor they were handed over physical possession till 31.03.2015. Then why M/s STPL would pay such a huge amount to the appellant company. It is not a small deal which could simply be done on agreement to sale. It is highly improbable for any company to pay such a huge amount of Rs. 36,56,48,734/- for purchase of 20 shops without any registered conveyance/ sale deed or physical possession, if the transaction is genuine. Not registering the conveyance/ sale deed itself makes it a non-genuine transaction as the buyer has to pay stamp duty on Rs. 36.56 cr. to the Govt. Authorities, which would have somewhere between 1.45 cr to 1.85 cr. Now, why anybody in a non-genuine sale/purchase transaction would pay such a huge amount of stamp duty to the Govt. Authorities. 7.18 The appellant contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntries. vi. Sh. Sushil Kumar Purohit was director of M/s STPL from 07.08.2000 to 04.02.2011. vii. From 21.01.2010 Mr. NavinRaheja (Managing Director of M/s Raheja Developers Pvt. Ltd.) and Mr. NirmalRaheja were appointed as a non-executive directors of M/s STPL. viii. Sh. NavinRaheja was the majority shareholder in M/s STPL holding substantial shares. ix. Sh. NavinRaheja was appointed as the director in M/s STPL just prior to transfer of funds from M/s STPL. 7.20 Now, here question comes why someone will buy substantial holding in a paper/shell company. 7.21 The answer is to safeguard its investment. 7.22 In property market, especially in commercial properties being shop etc, an artificial shortage is created to increase sales/price. For that purpose shops are shown as sold to their own/allied entities. When there is shortage or sudden huge sales of shops in malls or complexes, the fence seaters get impassionate and approach the the builder for purchase of shop/property believing that any further delay may deprive them from getting proper or desired space, floor, location etc. for their business purposeth this case also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of statement of Sh. Sushil Kumar Purohit." 22. Considering the fact that those 20 shops were shown as purchased by a paper/shell company in which Director of the appellant company were substantial shareholder. We are completely agree with the inference and the observation made by the Ld. CIT(A) that 'the Substantial shareholding and Directorship in M/s Sagar Trtadelink Private Limited by Mr. Navin Raheja and not registering the shops in the name of M/s. Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd was to ensure the safety of investment in the form of allocation of shops to M/s. Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd so that M/s. Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. should not adventure into selling these shops to any third party without the knowledge of Mr. Navin Raheja/appellant company and run away with the sale proceeds. Since both the companies i.e. the appellant company and M/s. Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd are effectively controlled by Mr. Navin Raheja, M/s. Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd never insisted for physical possession of shops, registered sale/conveyance deed, etc.,. Thus, indirectly, the appellant company through M/s. Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd was holding these shops and routed its own unaccounted money in....