9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded the appeals of SVP Group entities. A perusal of the aforesaid order of the co-ordinate Bench reveals that the Tribunal has granted partial relief while deciding the appeals. This being the factual position, to what extent the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in case of SVP Group entities would influence the protective additions made at the hands of the assessee to make them substantive, needs to be examined. Therefore, due to the changed scenario because of the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of SVP Group entities, referred to above, the issues arising in these appeals are restored back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. The assessing officer must analyze the order of the co-ordinate Bench in case of SVP Group entities (supra), to find out to what extent the substantive additions made at the hands of the SVP Group entities corresponding to the protective additions made at the hands of the present assessee have been reduced and accordingly proceed to make additions if warranted, on substantive basis at the hands of the present assessee. Needless to mention, before deciding the issues, assessing officer must extend reasonable opportunity of being h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and other documents filed to substantiate the share application money received from parties and further investing the same in shares of SVP group as not genuine. 6. Because the directions of CIT(A) are being challenged on facts and Law, for invoking provision of Section 40A(3) in respect of purchase of shares and other relevant transactions without any material on record. 7. Because the directions of CIT(A) are being challenged on facts and Law, for initiation of proceedings u/s. 2711A read with section 278B without any cogent material found during search and or any material on record during assessment proceedings. 8. Because the directions of CIT(A) are being challenged on facts and Law, directing competent authority under Money Laundering Act as well as the serious Fraud Investigation office which is outside the scope of Income Tax Act without any material on record. 3. Whereas, the grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: 1. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,55,19,800/- made as unexplained each credit u/s.68 of the IT Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not prove with satisfactory details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amend any one or more of the grounds of the appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise. 4. Since issues raised in all these appeals are common, as a matter of convenience, all the appeals have been clubbed together and are disposed of in a consolidated order. 5. Briefly the facts are, a search and seizure operation under Section 132(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, was carried out in the cases of SVP Group concerns on 14.10.2008. Based on the seized material/information found in course of such search and seizure operation, proceedings under Section 153C of the Act were initiated against the assessee. In response to the notices issued under Section 153C of the Act, assessee filed its return of income. While initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act against the assessee, the main focus was to ascertain the source of investment in unquoted shares. In this regard, assessing officer called upon the assessee tofurnish details of investors with their addresses. However, as alleged by the assessing officer, the assessee did not furnish complete details and was non-cooperative. Based on seized material, the assessing officer found that a number of compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals on 11.09.2019 till 9th May 2022, on none of the occasions, the assessee appeared to represent its case. Even, the assessee has never cared to seek any adjournment either. This, despite a number of opportunities provided to the assessee by issuance of hearing notices through registered post as well as through the Office of the learned Departmental Representative. Even though, the orders of the proceedings of the Tribunal containing the order sheet entries starting from 27.10.2021 till 09.05.2022 were uploaded in the official web site, still the assessee remained absent. The aforesaid facts reveal complete lack of interest and apathy of the assessee in pursuing the present appeals. Since, these are very old appeals remaining pending for almost ten years, and, since sufficient opportunity has been granted to the assessee to represent its case, which the assessee has failed to avail, the Bench deems it appropriate to proceed with the hearing of the appeals ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on material available on record. 7. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gether and disposed in a common order. At para 19, page 90 the Hon ble Bench has held as under: Taking into consideration of all the above, we hold that the primary burden cast on the appellants stands duly discharged. The primary onus on the appellants is to judged on the basis of documentary evidence led by the appellants and facts and circumstances leading to the additions and on that basis, a reasonable view has to be taken whether the appellants have discharged the initial onus of establishing the identity of the shareholders, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions from the evidence gathered during the search proceedings, assessment proceedings and also first appellate proceedings, the independent existence of each of the shareholders stands established for the simple reason that all the shareholders are companies who have been assessed to tax. There is no material placed on record to show that the monies received as share capital were incomes of the appellants, The gamut of evidence does not leave any doubt in the discharge of primary burden of the appellants. In consideration of these observations, we hold that the share capital subscribed by 106 shareho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o facilitate transfer of money between the first layer of 85 companies used for parking on-money of the five flagship entities of SVP Group who are the real masterminds and running the entire show. It is also relevant to observe, assessing officer while making the additions at the hands of the assessee has accepted existence of the assessee company. He has also accepted the identity of the investors, except, for the cash source. The assessing officer has also held that the assessee has acted as a conduit channel. It has been brought to our notice by the learned Departmental Representative that, in the meanwhile, the Tribunal has decided the appeals of SVP Group entities in ITA No.4238/Del/2012 Ors. dated 29.04.2014. A perusal of the aforesaid order of the co-ordinate Bench reveals that the Tribunal has granted partial relief while deciding the appeals. This being the factual position, to what extent the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in case of SVP Group entities would influence the protective additions made at the hands of the assessee to make them substantive, needs to be examined. Therefore, due to the changed scenario because of the decision of the coordinate Bench in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
