ITO, WARD- 45(4), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHI ARORA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1992/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2021AY 2007-084 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Revenue had mistakenly filed the appeal as the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 80,15,18,553/- made on a protective basis. The addition was related to accommodation entries provided through eight firms allegedly controlled by Sh. Vaibhav Jain and operated by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of a protective addition was maintainable when the CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment. The core issue was the mistaken filing of the appeal by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 07.10.2021Pronounced: 13.10.2021

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 29/12/2017 passed by CIT(A)-15, for Assessment Year 2007-08.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,15,18,553/- on account of accommodation entry amounting to Rs 84,81,67,760/- on protective basis in the hands of the assessee where as substantive addition were made in the hands of Sh. Vaibhav Jain.

3.

In this case, information was received from ACIT Central Circle-10, New Delhi stating that the assessee is the proprietor of eight firms i.e. M/s Delhi Steel, M/s Bhawani Trading, M/s Om Sai International, M/s Omaxe Overseas, M/s Rajasthan Metal, M/s Ramji Traders, M/s Shree Balaji International and M/s Shree Ganesh Enterprises who had provided accommodation entries of Rs.84,81,67,780/- through these eight firms. These firms were controlled by one Sh. Vaibhav Jain and these firms were being operated by the assessee. Therefore, on the basis of this information notice u/s 148 dated 14.03.2014 was issued. In response to notice u/s 148 dated 14.03.2014, the AR of the assessee filed return of income vide letter dated 25.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 53,000/-. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were also issued and in response thereto, Advocate & A.R. of the assessee appeared and filed an affidavit stating therein that the assessee had not made any transactions or any business activities in the firms i.e. M/s Delhi Steel, M/s Bhawani Trading, M/s Om Sai International, M/s Omaxe Overseas, M/s Rajasthan Metal, M/s Ramji Traders, M/s Shree Balaji International and M/s Shree Ganesh Enterprises. Statement on oath of the assessee was recorded and she categorically deposed that during the period relevant to assessment year under consideration, she was only an instrument of Sh. Navneet Jain and Sh. Vaibhav Jain who had been controlling the above mentioned firms and she does not know what business had been carried out by these firms. After going through the details and the submissions of the Assessee, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of Rs.84,81,67,780/- of the assessee on Protective Basis.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that this appeal is wrongly filed as the CIT(A) has confirmed the additions and, therefore, the appeal becomes infructuous.

6.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice. The notice is returned back with the remark that “Always Locked”.

7.

We have heard Ld. DR and it is found that the Department has mistakenly filed this appeal when the CIT(A) has confirmed the Assessment Order. Therefore, the appeal becomes infructuous. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →