JUDGEMENTopens in new window

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1-4 ITA 683/2015 PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel with Mr. Shikhar Dhawan,Advoeate versus VIJAY CONDUCTORS INDIA PVT. LTD Respondent With JT^684/2015 PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel with Mr. Shikhar Dhawan,Advocate versus NAMRATA MARKETING PVT. LTD. Respondent With ITA 685/2015 PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel with Mr. Shikhar Dhawan,Advocate versus VISHRUT MARKETING PVT. LTD. Respondent ITA Nos. 683, 684, 685 &686/2015 Page 1 of 5 2015:DHC:11768-DB

And ITA 686/2015 PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel with Mr. Shikhar Dhawan,Advocate versus BERIWAL INVESTMENT & CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 29.09.2015 CM AFP No. 18260 of 2015(exeniptionl in ITA No.683 of 2015 CM AFP No. 18268 of 2015(exemptionl in ITA No.684 of 2015 CM AFP No. 18271 of 2015(exemDtionl in ITA No.685 of 2015 CM APP No. 18289 of 2015rexeniptionl in ITA No.686 of 2015 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications stand disposed of. ITA No.683 of 2015 ITA No.684 of 2015 ITA No.685 of 2015 ITA No.686 of 2015 3. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against a common order dated 28^ January 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') ITA Nos. 683, 684, 685 &686/2015 Page 2 of 5 2015:DHC:11768-DB

for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2008-09. 4. The common issue in all the appeals issues concerns the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act ('Act') which was directed to be deleted by the ITAT. 5. A survey was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department under Section 133 A of the Act in the office premises of one Mr. S.K. Gupta who was in the business of providing accommodation entries to various persons. During the survey, several documents, papers, laptops containing the accounts of several parties were impounded. An application was filed by Mr. Gupta before the Settlement Commission in which he admitted to carrying on the business of providing accommodation entries on which commission/brokerage was received by him. 6. The ITAT referred to the order dated 28^ December 2010 of the Settlement Commission which records inter alia that Mr. Gupta was an entry provider and that in his case only the amount of premium/commission received by him after reducing expenses incurred would be his additional income. The order of the Settlement Commission also gave a list of the concerns controlled by Mr. Gupta which included the present Assessees. ITA Nos. 683, 684, 685 &686/2015 Page 3 of 5 2015:DHC:11768-DB

These companies/entities were used by Mr. Gupta as conduit for issue of cheques to the beneficiaries. 7. The Assessing Officer (AO) gave effect to the order of the Settlement Commission and determined the income of Mr. S.K. Gupta without making any addition for unexplained cash credit. During the course of assessment Proceedings of the intermediary companies, including the Respondent Assessees, the AO sought directions from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 144-A. The Additional CIT passed an order in which after discussing the facts he inter alia directed that it would be in the best interest of the Revenue to tax these transactions in the hands of beneficiaries and Mr. S.K. Gupta "without making any additions on this account in the hands of conduit entities". The said orders of the Settlement Commission or of the Additional CIT were binding on the AO. 8. It is not in dispute that the Respondent Assessees are the conduit entities and not the beneficiaries. Consequently, the order of the ITAT deleting the addition under Section 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. ITA Nos. 683, 684, 685 &686/2015 Page 4 of 5 2015:DHC:11768-DB