Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Date of hearing 15.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.12.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order date 23.10.2024 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1069874093(1), involving proceedings under section 147/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It had also not put in appearance on all the preceding hearing occasions as well. The assessee is accordingly decided ex-parte.
We notice with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee hereby raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 dated 08.12.2018 reassessing total income at Rs.1,88,39,440/- against the returned loss of Rs. 16,901/- 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening by the AO which were without following the directions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017-TIOL-2041-HC-DEL-IT) dated 25.09.2017 and not providing the copies of documents/information received which formed the basis for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the mechanical reopening of the assessment of the appellant u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 done by the AO without any application of mind solely on the borrowed opinion.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the mechanical vajus reopening of the assessment of the appellant u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 done by the AO contrary to his own view in the original assessment order and also contrary to the stand taken by the AO in similarly placed other cases where the reopening notice issued by the AO himself was dropped.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO without dealing with the specific facts raised by the appellant in the assessment/appellate proceeding as well as in response to the remand report.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 18839440/- made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged commission @2% of the amounts of total debits and credits in the bank accounts which is contrary to his own stand taken in the 2 | P a g e original assessment proceeding as well as in several other identically placed cases.”
We next find that the assessee’s 1st, 5th and 7th substantive grounds are general in nature. Rejected therefore.
The asessee’s 2nd substantive ground pleads that the impugned reopening is not sustainable in law as the learned assessing authority had not provided a copy of the relevant document/information forming subject matter of section 148 reopening reasons. A perusal of the case records indicates that the learned CIT(A)’s relevant lower appellate discussion had made it clear in para 11.1 that the assessee had been duly provided a copy of the corresponding reopening reasons on 25.10.2018. Rejected accordingly.
Coming to the assessee’s 3rd and 4th substantive grounds, we note that it has not placed on record any material in the case file to the fact that the impugned reopening is based on borrowed opinion or it is mechanical in nature; as the case may be. Rejected accordingly.
Lastly comes the assessee’s 6th substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in assessing 2% of the debits and credits of the bank accounts
3 | P a g e resulting in addition of Rs.1,88,39,440/-, in course of assessment and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
The Revenue vehemently argues in light of the assessment findings that the learned departmental authorities had come across the detailed evidence that the assessee had been a beneficiary from well-orchestrated accommodation entry network relating to Mr. Himanshu Verma group. This made both the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) to hold that a commission income component @ 2% herein would be just and proper. The Revenue could hardly dispute that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere discussed the segmental accommodation entry trends and the comparable cases so as to justify the impugned commission income assessment @ 2%. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition @ 1% of the above accommodation entries would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.