9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had obtained accommodation entry amounting to Rs. 30 lacs from the concerns floated by Sh. Surender Kumar Jain. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 28.3.2012 was issued, after recording the reasons and after obtaining the approval. In response thereto, the A.R. of the assessee attended and filed the details from time to time. Thereafter, the AO observed that in the case of Surender Kumar Jain Group, the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, New Delhi, has, during action u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act and thorough post search inquiries have established that the concerns floated by Surender Kumar Jain Group have provided accommodation entries to various beneficiaries, the name of the assessee company appears in the list of beneficiaries received from the Investigation Wing. The DIT(Inv.) during the course of investigation in the case of Surender Kumar Jain Group, found that the group have operated multiple accounts in various branches to plough back unaccounted black money for the purpose of business or for personal needs such as purchases of assets etc. in the form o gifts, share application money loans etc. during the course of investigation by the DIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition. On 4.3.2013, notice u/s 131 were issued to the principal officer of M/S Steller Investment Ltd and to Sh. Thapliyal for personal deposition along with the bank statement of the bank account for the entire financial year. In response to the said notices, Sh. thapliyal sent a confirmation by post enclosing there with a photocopy of bank statement from 1.2.2005 to 9.3.2005. No response was received from M/S Steller Investment Ltd. The letter was properly addressed and prepaid and not received back unserved . Therefore , as per the provisions of section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, it is presumed that the notice u/s 131 of the Act was served upon M/s Steller Investment Ltd. On 18.3.2013, the AR of the assessee company attended at his own and filed response to notice u/s 131 ,one copy of confirmation and bank statement received earlier by post from Sh. Thapliyal. From the details filed, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of the parties could not be established. The AR of the assessee company has filed confirmations from both the share applicants. On the other hand, when the AO asks the AR to produce the parties for personal deposition, the AR does not produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther added Rs. 90,000/- being 1% to 2% commission on the gross amount of entry provided and completed the assessment at Rs. 45,78,950/- u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 15.12.2014 has deleted both the additions and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds and requested that Appeal of the Revenue may be allowed. 6. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which needs to be upheld and accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I find that Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately adjudicated the issue raised in grounds no. 1 & 2 in dispute vide para no. 3 to 4 from pages 8 to 10 of the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Engineering Construction Co. 83 ITR 187. The Hon'ble Lordships had accepted the findings of the Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal that the cash credit entries cannot be treated as income of the appellant as undisclosed income because company has not yet started any business activity. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted. Grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are allowed. (ii) Since no addition on account of share application money is confirmed, 2% commission amounting to Rs. 90,OOO/- is also deleted because there is no evidence that appellant has taken entry for share application money. This addition is also deleted and the ground of the appeal is allowed. 4. In the result, appeal is allowed." 7.1 After going through the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), as aforesaid, I find that in this case the AO has not made any enquiries. Even during the assessment proceedings, the confirmation and affidavit was filed by Shri Virender Kumar Jain on behalf of M/s Steller Investment Ltd. but no enquiry was made. The AO requested for production of the parties, however, they were not produced before the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
