9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be made in the hands of those companies, on substantive basis. The revenue have not shown us any evidence that the addition in the hands of those companies having survived for the reason that it should be taxed in the hands of this assessee. AO has also made addition u/s. 69 C of the Act of expenses of obtaining the accommodation entry in the hands of the assessee, on protective basis. The expenditure of accommodation entries were also held to be the income of those assesses, who obtained accommodation entry and therefore, such expenditure is confirmed as unexplained expenditure of those beneficiaries. In view of this, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), after carefully recording the order of the learned Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,75,00,000/- on account of unaccounted investment and of ₹ 18,75,500/- on account of unaccounted commission u/s. 69C without considering the fact that the said entry is merely on accommodation entry and the assessee was a conduit for introducing unaccounted funds which has been proved beyond doubt. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred deleting the protective addition of ₹ 7,75,00,000/- on account of unaccounted investment by observing that the investment reflected in the balance sheet is out of corresponding liabilities as the assessee company is not carrying any business actually and the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors of the assessee, were found to be dummy, and they were only signing documents as per the direction of Shri Rinku Patodia. Assessee Company was also found to be a paper company. Shri Rinku Patodia is managing director of First Winner Industries Ltd., who in statement recorded under section 132(4) on 11/08/2014 and 12/08/2014 admitted that the directors in those companies are his employees/relatives or persons, who are merely for namesake are dummy directors. 6. The learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee has invested into share capital of several companies and which are merely accommodation entries. Accordingly, learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee has made an investment of ₹ 7.75 crores in some other companies. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the additions have been confirmed in the hands of the parties, who are the beneficiaries of those accommodation entries. He held that when the substantive additions have already been confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in the hands of those parties, the protective additions in the hands of the assessee naturally do not survive. Therefore, he deleted the protective addition with respect to a sum of ₹ 7.75 crores in the hands of the assessee. With respect to the addition under section 69C of the Act for expenses of commission etc on obtaining accommodation entries, he also deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee to the extent of ₹ 18.75 lakhs holding that such addition cannot also be upheld in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh which, the money has been routed for making investment in another companies. Therefore, the learned assessing officer, after carefully considering the facts of the whole transactions made addition in the hands of the real beneficiary on substantive basis and in the hands of the assessee, on protective basis. The addition in the hands of the beneficiary has been confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in their respective cases holding that the addition is required to be made in the hands of those companies, on substantive basis. The revenue have not shown us any evidence that the addition in the hands of those companies having survived for the reason that it should be taxed in the hands of this assessee. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 2110/Mum/2019 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. ITA No. 2111/Mum/2019 16. ITA No. 2111/Mum/2019 is filed by the learned Assessing Officer for assessment year 2012-13. 17. Facts clearly shows that the assessee filed return of income on 28/09/2012 at ₹ 3,17,380/-. This return of income, pursuant to search were assessed by order dated 29/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 wherein the addition of ₹ 6.02 crores have been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis and the same addition was made in the hands of the companies, who received the share application money suffered on substantive basis. A further addition of ₹ 15,05,000/- was also mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
