9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer relevant to AYs 2013-14. 2. Since facts involved in these appeals are same and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being consolidated and disposed of by this common order. In all the appeals there are similar grounds of appeal except the difference in figures. Therefore, for the sake of reference and facility, facts in the case of Freak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 5010/Del/2018 (AY 2013-14) is being discussed and the grounds of appeal raised in this appeal are reproduced as under: - 1. "That the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.03.2016 and appellate order passed on 30.05.2018 are perverse to the law and to the facts of the case because of not following proper law and procedure while completing the assessment and adjudication of appeal filed by the appellant company. 2. That the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law and to the facts of the case in making lump-sum addition of ₹ 13,98,821/- being commission income in the hands of the appellant @ 0.60% merely on the basis of his presumption and guess work without the support of any material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is also perverse to the law and to the facts of the case, because of not taking into consideration the explanation given, evidence produced and placed upon records under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules by the Ld. CIT(A), that the same is already forming part of the gross sale proceeds received and disclosed in the ITR. 9. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.05.2018 was further illegal, as the remand report received on dated 01.05.2017 on the back of the appellant company were never confronted to the appellant for its rebuttal thereof, the contents of which have been used while adjudicating the appeal. 10. That the appellant company assails their right to amend, alter, change any grounds of appeal or take any further ground at any time even during the course of hearing of this instant appeal." 3. Original return of income declaring income of ₹ 1,95,600/- was e-filed on 03.12.2014 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Since the assessee has filed its return of income after the end of relevant assessment year i.e. 31.03.2014, the Assessing Officer has also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actions of assessee companies are sham and not as normal business transactions. The AO further held that the assessee company is not doing any genuine business activities but merely acting as conduit to pass the funds may be for some ulterior motive/part of scheme of providing accommodation entries to some unscrupulous persons companies. In view of the above, the income of the assessee company is brought to tax as income from other sources and the Assessing Officer also observed that most of the entry operators are normally charging @ 60 paise to ₹ 1 per ₹ 100 as commission for providing accommodation entries. In view of the above facts, commission @ 0.60% on ₹ 23,31,36,876/-, being total credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee which comes to ₹ 13,98,821/-. The Assessing Officer added to the income of the assessee. AO also initiation the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee and also held that as per the 26AS data the assessee company has earned interest amounting to ₹ 5,42,460/- from two parties on which TDS have been deducted u/s 94A of the Act. Assessee has not shown the interest income in its return though it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that facts and circumstances of the assessees case is almost similar to the facts of the case relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee passed by the ITAT Delhi Bench (SMC), New Delhi in the case of M/s Sorus Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle 28, New Delhi in ITA No. 2773/Del/2017 dated 06.11.2018. For the sake of convenience the relevant paragraphs six and seven at pages 7 & 8 of the said order are reproduced as under: "6. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders of lower authorities. I find that the sole issue for adjudication is estimation of rate of commission on the business of providing accommodation entry. In the present case, as per the affidavit of the Director of the assessee company, it is established beyond doubt that assessee company is a paper company and not doing any real business. Further, on perusal of impugned order and assessment order, it is clear that assessee company is a conduit company operated by Sh. Vivek Jain and is engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. In these circumstances, I am inclined to approve the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and AO to the effect that assessee company is an e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
