9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound which established that the Sh. Anand Jain and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain were operating bank accounts in the names of various concerns/companies through which accommodation entries were being provided and the appellant company was one of such shell concerns. Further the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries were also identified and information to their respective AOs was also disseminated as mentioned in the assessment order as well as the remand report. CIT(A) held that as far as charging of commission is concerned in the case of the assessee, it has been held by the AO in the assessment order that Sh. Anand Jain and Sh. Naresh Jain were entry operators who were managing and controlling various shell concerns including the appellant for providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission and taking that logic there is no question of charging of commission income in the hands of the appellant company arises, since nothing has been earned by the company, being the shell concern. Since, the commission already stands taxed in the hands of the entry operators in their individual capacity, no separate commission can be charged in the hands of the pass through/ companies floate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the eye and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions made under Section 153C are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the assessment order was passed alleging that the assessee did not produce director of the assessee company but no such opportunity was provided to the assessee company. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed ignoring the fact that the addition has been made by the AO without pointing out any defect in the evidences filed by the assessee. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough which the black money of real beneficiaries has been laundered/routed/passed through before providing accommodation entries to them. The AO, holding the assessee as conduit concern of Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain; Entry Operators, assessed the entire bank credits of Rs. 13,31,58,724/- Rs. 19,74,75,991/- Rs. 24,56,49,161/- Rs. 23,08,12,351/- and Rs. 10,39,32,748/-of the assessee as unexplained under section 68 of the Act, in the hands of the assessee on protective basis, in AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 4.3 The AO, in para 09 of the assessment orders, has categorically mentioned that the information relating to beneficiaries had already been passed on to the respective AOs of all beneficiaries for doing needful at their end by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. Further, the AO has specifically mentioned that "he is also informing the AOs of concerned beneficiaries for taking appropriate action in their respective cases and therefore, protective addition is being made here for the credit entries" in the present cases. Thereafter, the AO has worked out commission income @ 0.25% of the above-mentioned bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 7. Shivangi Garments (P) Ltd.; ITA Nos. 2186 to 2188/Del/2024 for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 8. Round Square Exim (P) Ltd.; ITA Nos 8834 to 8837/Del/2019 for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 9. Nine Corporate Inception (P) Ltd.; ITA Nos. 189 to 191, 221/Del/2022 for AY 2013-14 to 2016-17 7. We have heard both parties at length and have perused material available on records. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR. The Tribunal, in the cases of ZenTradex (P) Ltd. (supra) and Zed Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra). The coordinate bench of the ITAT, in the case of Zed Enterprises (P) Ltd.: ITA No. 208 to 212/Del/2022 for AY 2012-13 to 2016-17, has held as under: "12. We have examined the ratio of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that the AO in the assessment order has claimed to have identified the names of beneficiaries and already disseminated the information to the assessing officers of the beneficiaries and hence the credits received by the appellant cannot be treated as unexplained credit in its hands since, the said transactions are mere arrangement of funds/routing of unaccounted income of the beneficiaries to whom the said funds were transferred through the bank of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
