M/S. NDR BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2981/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 November 2021AY 2007-086 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors, and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) were found to be justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee company received accommodation entries of Rs. 19,00,000/- from entry operators. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made additions under Section 68 for the principal amount and Section 69C for commission. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee discharged its onus to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the accommodation entries received, and whether the reopening of the assessment was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC-1’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

Hearing: 17.11.2021Pronounced: 17.11.2021

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2017 of the learned CIT(A)-33, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2007-08.

2.

This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for want of prosecution. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.2019 in MA No.286/Del/2018 recalled its earlier order. Hence, this is a recalled matter.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The notice issued through the registry was also returned unserved by the postal authority with remarks ‘the house was locked’. Even the earlier letter sent by the registry through RPAD fixing the hearing on 15.03.2021 and again on 02.06.2021 were also returned by the postal authority. The assessee has also not taken any steps intimating the change of address if any. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.

4.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and had filed its return of income on 11.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs.540/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information obtained that the assessee has taken accommodation entries of Rs.19,00,000/- during the Financial Year 2006-07 relevant to the Assessment Year 2007-08 from the dummy/paper company of Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta group of cases, who admitted to be mere entry operators, the case of assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee submitted that the return already filed by the assessee may be considered as return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act.

4.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details and documents in support of the accommodation entries received by the assessee of Rs.19,00,000/-. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee and relying upon various decisions, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to substantiate the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act i.e. the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, he made addition of Rs.19,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act.

5.

The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.57,000/- u/s 69C of the Act being the expenses incurred as commission @ 3% on the accommodation entries of Rs.19,00,000/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.19,57,000/-

6.

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the Assessing Officer.

7.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in iaw the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the assessing officer had rightly and legally taken action u/s 147/148.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that action u/s 147/148 was legal and valid and was good in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the assessment framed by the AO was valid and good in law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the assessing officer rightly treated the amount of Rs. 19 lakh as income of the assessee u/s 68. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the assessing officer has rightly treated the amount of Rs. 57,000/- as income of the assessee u/s 69C of the I.T Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained and proved identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the share capital holders. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the assessing officer had rightly and validly made the addition of Rs. 19,57,000/-. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

8. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has taken accommodation entries of Rs.19,00,000/- from the companies controlled by the Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta group of cases, who had admitted to be mere entry operators. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as the appeal proceedings failed to discharge the onus cast upon it by proving the identity and creditworthiness of the Investor Company and genuineness of the transaction. Even before me also, nothing has been brought to my notice to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case as well as sustaining the addition on merit. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

The Order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 17.11.2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →