SAMARTHMAL H. SHAH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6487/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 December 2019AY 2008-094 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 upheld the addition of Rs. 6.00 lacs as accommodation entries. The assessee failed to provide any details or respond to the authorities below.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the addition of Rs. 6.00 lacs made by the AO on account of accommodation entries. The assessee did not appear before the AO, CIT(A), or ITAT despite notices and opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 6.00 lacs on account of accommodation entries is justified. Whether the best judgment assessment is valid in absence of assessee's response.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA&

For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Sr.DR)
Hearing: 04/12/2019Pronounced: 06/12/2019

Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing 04/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement 06/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10/08/2018 of ld. CIT(A)-30, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2008-09 in the matter of order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2.

In this appeal, the assessee is basically aggrieved for confirming the addition of Rs. 6.00 lacs made by the A.O. on account of accommodation entries.

3.

No body appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of issuance of notice. I also found that even before the ld. CIT(A), no body

Samarthmal H. Shah Jain Vs ACIT appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of various opportunities being given by the ld. CIT(A) as mentioned at para 4 of the appellate order. I also found that even before the A.O., no body appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any detail was filed as asked by him. In absence of any response from the assessee, best judgment assessment was framed by the A.O. U/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record.

4.

I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. by the DDIT(Inv.) Unit-I(4), Mumbai on 25/11/2009. The search was conducted on the basis of information received from the financial intelligence unit, New Delhi regarding suspicious transactions taking place in the various bank accounts of the above referred company and its groups of companies. Shri Mukesh Choksi and Shri Jayesh K.

Sampat are the directors of these companies. During the course of search and seizure action, it was revealed by them that M/s Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. and its related group of 34 odd companies (the prominent ones being M/s Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd., M/s Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd., M/s Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd. etc. all run by Shri Mukesh Choksi and his associates) are engaged in fraudulent billing activities and are in the business of Samarthmal H. Shah Jain Vs ACIT providing entries for speculation profit/loss, short term/long term capital gain/loss, share application money, commodities profit/loss on commodities trading (through MCX). In the statement recorded during the course of search and seizure proceedings, Shri Mukesh Choksi has admitted of having provided accommodation entries to various persons. In view of the above information, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice U/s 148 of the Act. Since the assessee was one of the beneficiaries, who has obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 6.00 lacs from M/s Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. in respect of scrip of MMTC.

5.

It was seen that in response to all above stated statutory notices the assessee did not attend nor filed any details. Accordingly assessment was framed U/s 144 of the Act wherein after discussing in detail all the facts and circumstances, the A.O. added Rs. 6.00 lacs in respect of accommodation entry obtained by the assessee. Even before the ld. CIT(A) neither the assessee appeared nor filed any adjournment petition in respect of so many opportunities given by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, upheld the action of the A.O.. Even before the ITAT, nothing was placed so as to persuade me to deviate from the findings and conclusion of the lower authorities. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the lower authorities in Samarthmal H. Shah Jain Vs ACIT making and confirming the addition of Rs. 6.00 lacs in respect of accommodation bills.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06th December, 2019.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →