Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of commission income for providing accommodation entries. The Assessee had filed a Cross Objection.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own order in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the real beneficiaries were identified and substantive additions were made at their hands, thus protective additions in the hands of the assessee could not survive.
Key Issues
Whether protective additions made on account of commission income for providing accommodation entries can survive when substantive additions are made in the hands of the beneficiaries.
Sections Cited
147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The captioned appeal is filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals(‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), New Delhi dated 23/11/2021 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2015-16 in to 8837/Del/2019 Assessee’s own case, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Revenue.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the assessment order, sought for allowing the present Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2015-16 while deciding the identical issue in and connected matters held as under:-
“9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, impugned order and case law cited before us. In the present case, while deleting the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed as under:- “6.4. From the above transactions, it is noticed that the appellant company has received funds from various concerns and transferred the same to the above mentioned companies/concerns immediately thereafter, and accordingly, appellant company is not beneficiary company. The above arrangement of funds is nothing but part of modus operandi of the accommodation entry provider to introduce the unaccounted funds of the beneficiaries in their respective bank accounts. Further, the AO also in the assessment order has observed that the appellant company was a conduit company operated by Sh. Naresh Jain and Anand Jain to provide accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and said beneficiaries have already been identified. Accordingly, when the beneficiaries are identified, the addition in such cases can at best be that of commission earned on such accommodation entries. The commission income earned on providing accommodation entries through the appellant company have already been assessed by the AO in the hands of Sh. Anand Jain and Naresh Jain which has been confirmed by me in their respective appeals. Therefore, I am of the view that no further addition can be made in the hands of appellant company under the facts as discussed above. Under these circumstances, the protective addition made by the AO of Rs. 14,18,37,75/- is directed to be deleted.
In ground nos. 12, the appellant has challenged the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,54,594/-. The AO in the assessment order has made an addition on account of commission income of Rs. 3,54,594/- on account of commission income @0.25% of the total credits of Rs.14,18,37,753/- received from various parties. 7.1. In this regard, it has already been held in para 6.4. of this order that the addition on account of commission income has already been made in the hands of Anand Kumar Jain and Naresh Kumar Jain as these two persons were operating appellant company as conduit for providing accommodation entries. Having held that these two persons were operating these companies including the appellant, l am of the view that no further addition on account of commission is warranted in the hands of appellant company under the facts as discussed above. Therefore, the addition made on account of commission of Rs.3,54,594/- is directed to be deleted.”
As could be seen from the aforesaid observations of the Ld. CIT(A), since, the real beneficiaries, who have availed the accommodation entries were identified, the substantive additions have been made at their hands. That being the case, protective additions made at the hands of the assessee cannot survive 11. While considering identical issue on similar facts, the companies, allegedly managed and controlled by Jain Brothers, the Coordinate Bench in the cases of DCIT Vs. M/s. Shivji Garments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and ACIT Vs. M/s. Zed Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) has upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition.
In the present cases, the facts are being identical, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), in deleting the additions. Accordingly, revenue grounds are dismissed.
Since, the Department’s appeals are dismissed, the assessee has not pressed the Cross objections, hence, the COs stands rejected as infructuous.
The facts and issues raised in the Revenue’s appeal and Cross Objections of the assessee in the Assessment Years 2013- 14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 are exactly identical to the facts and issues raised in the Assessment Year 2012-13. Therefore, our finding given in respect of Assessment year 2012-13 shall be applicable to the Assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015- 16 in pari material, decided accordingly.
In the result, four appeals of the Revenue and four Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed.” 5. By respectfully following the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2015-16 in to 8837/Del/2019, we dismiss the Appeal of the Revenue, consequently also dismiss the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee for having become in-fructuous.