9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Pvt. Ltd., M/s Mahanivesh (India) Ltd., M/s Tejasvi Investments Pvt. Ltd., M/s Tejasvi Investments Pvt. Ltd., M/s Adonis Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s Unique Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/s Vivek Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi. ITA No.4583 to 4586/Del/2012, 4541, 4542 4611/Del/2012, 4629 to 4634/Del/2012, 4643 4642/Del/2012, 4641/Del/2012, 4645 4644/Del/2012, 4635/Del/2012, 2522 2523/Del/2012, 2521/Del/2012, 2520/Del/2012, 2527 to 2533/Del/2012, 2524 to 2526/Del/2012, 3739 to 3741/Del/2012, 3745 to 3749/Del/2012, 3750 to 3753/Del/2012, 3737 3738/Del/2012 For the Appellant : Shri. V. P. Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent : Dr. Sudha Kumari, CIT. DR. ORDER PER BENCH: These are 94 appeals and pertain to Shri Tarun Goyal Group . 2. They pertain to different assessee and are directed against the respective order of the CIT (A) XXXIII, New Delhi. As common issues are involved and as the parties sought clubbing of the appeals, we heared the appeals together and dispose off the same by way of this common order. 3. Facts in brief: A search and seizure operation was ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who are also directors in these companies also denied to have any knowledge regarding capital and actual working of these companies and admitted that they are servant / employees in this group of companies and getting salary from Shri Tarun Goyal and sign the papers as per his direction. These companies are registered with ROC and main business of most of the companies was reflected as share trading and investments. There were no physical assets of these companies. In fact, these are paper companies run by Shri Tarun Goyal for providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries by taking cash and in order to disguise his transaction as genuine have been following layering of accounts through these companies. 4. Statements were recorded from Shri Tarun Goyal as well as some of the directors of Tarun Goyal Group of Companies. 5. Mr. Tarun Goyal confessed and admitted to the charge of providing accommodation entries by floating numerous companies and following layering of accounts, after cash was introduced in various companies. 6. Letter dated 14.12.2010 given by Mr. Tarun Goyal as given by the AO is extracted for ready reference: 6. During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies in the group. In response the assessees had filed returns of income u/s 139(1) r.w.s. 153A. The AO completed assessments in all the cases by making additions on account of; a) undisclosed commission earned and; b) unexplained credit being cash deposits etc. u/s 68. 8. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. 9. The first appellate authority dismissed all the appeals. 10. Aggrieved the assessees is before us on the following grounds: 1. That the CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 50,84,400/- being the cash deposited in the bank accounts of the appellant without appreciating that admittedly the appellant was carrying on the business of providing accommodation entries through bank accounts of various entities as well as his own bank accounts and the cash was deposited in the bank accounts of the appellant during the course of the above business for providing accommodation entries in respect of which commission income had also been declared in his income tax return for A.Y. 2009-10 and, therefore, cash deposited could not be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. In the alternative and witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n considering each of the case independently and accordingly, this Hon ble bench may be pleased to set aside the orders of assessments under appeals with the direction that assessment should be made in the hands of Mr. Tarun Goyal only. In similar circumstances the department has made assessments only in the hands of the person carrying on the business of providing accommodation entries [refer decision in the case of Manoj Aggarwal (Special Bench of 5 Members) and decisions of ITAT Delhi in the cases of Sanjay Kumar Garg and Sanjay Kumar Rastogicopies given in the case law compilation]. b. No addition on account of cash deposited in bank accounts can be made u/s 68 of the Act as depositing of cash is part of business of providing accommodation entries (refer decisions referred above). c. Rate of commission prevailing in the trade was of 25 paisa per hundred and this fact is corroborated by the decision in the case of Manoj Aggarwal and Sanjay Kumar Garg and also from the facts stated in the cases of Money Growth Investment (Delhi High Court) and Anchal Infrastructure (Assessment Order). d. The amount of commission should be determined with reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltiple taxation of the same amount. 18. In reply the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out the assessment in the case of Tarun Goyal for some of the assessment years has not attained finality and that it would be appropriate and legally correct to pass assessment orders in all the group cases simultaneously by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and by bring to tax only the peak amount of credit and by eliminating circular transactions. He submitted that as Mr. Tarun Goyal offered the entire income to tax in his hands, no separate addition is called for in any of the other companies, as the credits in those cases stand explained. On commission earned, on issue of accommodation entries, the ld. counsel reiterated in his contention. 19. Rival contention heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the papers on record in the orders of the authorities below as well as the case laws cited we hold as follows. 20. The undisputed fact accepted by the assessee is that Mr. Tarun Goyal was running a racket of providing accommodation entries by floating numerous companies. The modus operandi br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
