M/S. LOOKLINE VINCOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(2), , KOLKATA

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 23.01.2025 for the AY 2018-19.

“6.1. In Grounds of Appeal

No. 1, 2 and 3 [As per Para 3 above] 6.1.1. Please refer to Para 3 for the above grounds. 6.1.2. The above ground pertains to 148A. On examining Order u/s 148A(d), it is seen that an opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellant by issue of notice u/s 148A(b) dated 17.03.2022, as per which a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant after prior approval from the Competent Authority and the appellant was issued a show cause as to why notice why notice u/s 148 should not be issued based on the information available with the Ld. AO. The Show Cause Notice was served on the appellant and the appellant was asked to submit the reply on or before 30.03.2022. The appellant submitted reply as per which it admitted on receiving the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- from M/s Eclat Construction Pvt. Ltd. It was noted by the Ld. AO that as this amount was received from Shell Company, it is liable to be treated as income u/s 168 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant failed to include this income in his return of income and this is an Accommodation Entry given to the beneficiaries, which is layered through several Bank Accounts of the Shell Company to provide benefit to the beneficiary: 6.1.3 In view of the above narration of facts it is clear that the Ld. AO has followed the procedure as laid down in the Income Tax Act. The appellant quoted the decision of Indian Education Society vs. ACIT- Circle1, Mumbai and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 11683 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 placed with the same issue has admitted the Writ by stating that there was prima facie merits in the argument of the appellant. The above decision quoted by the appellant is considered and the appellant has not brought out as to how the Facts of the Case quoted are similar to appellant's case and hence, it is not clear as to how the above Case Law is applicable to the appellant. 6.1.4. In view of the discussion of the facts and circumstances, I have no doubt in my mind that the case has been validly re-opened by the Ld. AO and after following the due process of law and after seeking necessary approvals, had passed an Order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148. Thus, the Grounds raised by the appellant in this regard are rejected.”

05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) dated 17.03.2022, after the ld. AO received information from the investigation wing that the assessee company has received various amounts in the bank account from the shell company which are non-existent and have no creditworthiness. Thereafter it was noted that the assessee has received ₹17 lacs from M/s Eclcat Constructions Pvt. Ltd. which is a shell

“6.3.2. It was noticed by the Ld. AO that the appellant has received interest income of Rs. 83,31,165/- from 19 Parties/Entities. Against this, the appellant has claimed salaries of Rs. 80,70,000/-. The appellant filed list of 34 persons to whom salary was paid at an average rate of Rs. 2,20,000 to 2,40,000/-. The Ld. AO was of the view that when the appellant was just receiving interest from 19 Parties/Entities then why does the Company need 34 persons for such a work. The Ld. AO asked for details such as: a. Details of work assigned to each employee. b. Performance of duty done by each employee. C. Mode of Payment made to examine the actual payment of salary. The appellant could not produce the above details to the Ld. AO. During the appellate proceedings also, in his submission, the appellant has just quoted the following decisions, ACIT, Circle-33 vs. Debdas Dutta dated 15-12-2017 and Animesh Sadhu vs ACIT in dated 12.11.2014. No details as enumerated above have been submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings and hence, I find no reason to interfere in the Order passed by the Ld. AO. Also, the Decision quoted by the appellant are pertaining to additions made on estimate basis which is not the case in the present addition and hence, the above decision have not been considered. 6.3.3. In view of the above discussion of facts and circumstances, this ground is rejected”

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025.