2011 (2) TMI 917 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure - Block assessment - accommodation entry - On many occasions his statements were recorded at the Investigation Wing Unit-2 in which he has clearly specified that he has not been transacting any real business but he only used to issue cheques for various bank accounts under his control against the cash received from the persons who used to approach him through various mediators - He has not been maintaining any books of accounts and the details were being maintained as Kachha records which were used to be destroyed from time to time out of which some have been seized by the Income Tax Department.Annexure A-16 A-18 A-19 A-20 & A-21 of party M-5 clearly supports our above said contention - So far as identity credit worthiness and genuineness of credit entries is concerned we have to clarify that it is not possible to give identity and creditworthiness of the parties who were the beneficiaries and actually the amount has been received from various mediators as is evident from the Annexure A-16 A-18 A-19 A-20 & A-21 of party M-5 - Decided against the assessee As regards delay in issuing notice to the assessee we find merit in the contention that it was a case which involved a huge fraud of tax evasion where business of searched person was to give accommodation entries resulting in tax evasion to the extent of Rs.132 Crores in total spread over the cases of various assesses in all over India - Decided in favor of the Revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Genuineness of transactions of sale of shares.
2. Validity of notice under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer during block assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Genuineness of Transactions of Sale of Shares:

The revenue challenged the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, arguing that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the sale transactions of shares. The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information obtained during the block assessment of M/s Friends Portfolio (P) Ltd., revealing that the assessee had received accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer added Rs.13,82,375/- to the income of the assessee, concluding the transactions were not genuine and introduced as the assessee's own money. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal deleted these additions, stating that the Assessing Officer did not provide evidence to support the claim that transactions with M/s JRD Stock Brokers were bogus. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer primarily discussed the modus operandi of Manoj Aggarwal, relevant only to transactions through M/s Friends Portfolio (P) Ltd., and not through other parties.

2. Validity of Notice under Section 158BD:

For the block period 1.4.1990 to 3.8.2000, the revenue contended that the notice under Section 158BD was issued after recording the requisite satisfaction. The CIT(A) set aside the additions, asserting that the satisfaction was not recorded during the block assessment of the searched person, M/s Friends Portfolio (P) Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the mandatory satisfaction was not recorded during the assessment of Manoj Aggarwal or M/s Friends Portfolio (P) Ltd., and the notice was issued much later. The CIT(A) also highlighted that no seized material was confronted with the assessee during the assessment proceedings under Section 158BD.

3. Recording of Satisfaction by the Assessing Officer during Block Assessment:

The revenue argued that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal erred in holding that no requisite satisfaction was recorded during the block assessment of the searched person. The Assessing Officer of the searched person was fully satisfied that the transactions of sale of shares by the assessee through the searched person were bogus. The revenue relied on the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pearey Lal and sons (EP) Ltd. to assert that the requirement of law was met. The court noted that the satisfaction must be formed during the assessment of the searched person but did not require any specific form for recording it. Given the extensive tax evasion involving Rs.132 Crores, the delay in issuing the notice was deemed reasonable.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the questions raised by the revenue were valid. The findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was given an opportunity to appear before the CIT(A) for further proceedings. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.