9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the returned income. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons to believe based on the information received from Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv.), New Delhi that the assessee has received accommodation entry to the extent of Rs. 3.11 crores during the year from the companies controlled by Pradeep Kumar Jindal group. The Investigation Wing forwarded the above information based on the statements recorded during the search and survey operation carried out in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jindal. The Assessing Officer recorded that as per the statement recorded by Pradeep Kumar Jindal during search and post-search investigation wherein he has stated and explained entire modus operandi of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and Investigation Wing has forwarded list of all the entities controlled by Pradeep Kumar Jindal. Based on the above information, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that assessee has received accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 3.11 crores from the shell companies of Pradeep Kumar Jindal and he has reason to believe that income to tune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer in his Assessment Order has noted that the above mentioned companies are managed and controlled by Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal and are engaged in providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer has also analyzed the financial status of these companies and concluded that the credit worthiness of these companies are doubtful as the major sources of funds of these companies are share capital, share premium and bogus borrowing received from various companies and that they produce little or no independent economic value. The Assessing Officer has further noted that the appellant failed to produce the Directors of the companies and that none of these companies attended the office of Assessing Officer in response to notice u/s. 131 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has held that the cash credits to the extent of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- received by the appellant were unexplained in terms of the provisions of Section 68. 10.2 The appellant in his submission has stated that the Assessing Officer has solely relied on the statements of third persons namely Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal and his associates and that their statements have not been provided to the appellant nor any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO who has not provided the copy of such statements to the appellant, thus denying opportunity of cross examination to the appellant, who has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return. In view of the above discussion in totality, the purchases made by the appellant from M/s. Padmesh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. is found to be acceptable and the consequent disallowance resulting in addition to income made for Rs. 19,39,60,866/- is directed to be deleted. 4. The ITAT by its judgment dated 16th May 2014 relied on the self same reasoning and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Likewise, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 5th July, 2017, affirmed the judgements of the CIT and ITAT as concurrent factual findings, which have not been shown to be perverse and, therefore, dismissed the appeal stating that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. 5. In these circumstances, the Review Petitions are dismissed. " 10.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer has noted at para-7 of his order that all the companies responded to notices u/s. 133(6) dated 11.12.2020 issued by him and filed their replies alongwith information as required u/s 133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also noted in para-7.3 of the order that the appellant was provided opportunity to produce various Directors of the lending companies vide notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act dated 19.02.2021 which were not produced. Hence, to enquire the transactions further, the Assessing Officer issued summons u/s. 131 of the Income Tax Act to the Directors of the company namely Ms. Mamta Jindal, Shri Ajit Aggarwal and Sh. Rahul for personal appearance as well as for the submission of statements of bank account, copy of loan agreement and sources of loan. In para-7.5 of the order the AO observed that the reply was received from both the parties in respect of their companies, however, the Directors did not attend the office of the Assessing Officer personally one Director though filed reply but sought adjournment / more time for personal appearance. The Assessing Officer did not point out any mistake in the replies filed by the Directors called by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 5,30,000/- despite the fact that the addition was made as per the provisions of the I.T. Act. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT(Central)-3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) ITA 23/2021 & CM Appl. 5385/2021, wherein the Revenue has filed SLP in Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that after proper investigation in the case of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal, it was established that Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal was found to provide accommodation entries of share capital / premium, share forfeiture, exempt long term capital gain/loss, short term capital gain/loss, advance against property, unsecured loans, transfer of company, bogus sale, bogus purchase etc. Therefore, the transaction of the assessee with the entities controlled by Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal is doubtful. 5. Whether the order of Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law." 8. At the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rning substantial interest on loan which is evident from the audited profit & loss account submitted before the Assessing Officer. The assessee also recorded the abovesaid unsecured loan in its books of account and paid interest by duly deducting TDS as applicable on the payment of interest. Ld. CIT(A) observed that the above terms of lending unsecured loan to the assessee is real business transactions and cannot be treated as accommodation entries. Further, he observed that assessee also submitted year-wise profit & loss account of the of the abovesaid companies i.e. lender companies before the authorities and further assessee has demonstrated that assessee has paid the relevant interest on the borrowed money which is close to the market rate and also duly deducted TDS. It is also observed by the ld. CIT (A) that the assessee has repaid abovesaid borrowed loan in subsequent years. The Assessing Officer has conveniently ignored all these facts. It is also brought to our notice that all the above transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and there is no undisclosed cash credit involved in these transactions even though Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow the same u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
