Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
The instant batch of ten cases involves the twin assessees herein, namely, Sh. Mukesh Kumar and M/s. Mahashiv Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under:
Sl. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Order Appealed against No.
ITA No. Sh. Mukesh ACIT, Central CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s order 1683/Del/2024 for Kumar Circle-13, Delhi dated 12.02.2024 passed in case AY: 2011-12 no. 26/10422/2018-19, involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.
ITA No. Sh. Mukesh ACIT, Central CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s order 1684/Del/2024 for Kumar Circle-13, Delhi dated 12.02.2024 passed in case AY: 2012-13 no. 26/10423/2018-19, involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.
3. ITA No. Sh. Mukesh ACIT, Central CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s order 1685/Del/2024 for Kumar Circle-13, Delhi dated 12.02.2024 passed in case AY: 2013-14 no. 26/10425/2018-19, involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act. 4-5 ITA No. Sh. Mukesh ACIT, Central CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s order 1686/Del/2024 for Kumar Circle-13, Delhi dated 13.02.2024 passed in case AY: 2014-15 no. 26/10427/2018-19, involving proceedings under Central Sh. Mukesh Section 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the 1651/Del/2024 for Circle-2, Delhi Kumar Act. AY: 2014-15 6. ITA No. Sh. Mukesh ACIT, Central CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s order 1687/Del/2024 for Kumar Circle-13, Delhi dated 13.02.2024 passed in case AY: 2015-16 no. 26/10428/2018-19, involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.
ITA No. Sh. Mukesh ACIT, Central CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s order 1688/Del/2024 for Kumar Circle-13, Delhi dated 13.02.2024 passed in case AY: 2016-17 no. 26/10429/2018-19, involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.
2 | P a g e involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. 9.
Central M/s. Mahashiv CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s order 2791/Del/2022 for Circel-13, New Metal and Alloys dated 26.09.2022 passed in case AY: 2013-14 Delhi Pvt. Ltd. no. 26/10347/2018-19, involving proceedings under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
ITA No. DCIT, Central M/s. Mahashiv CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s order 2792/Del/2022 for Circel-13, New Metal and Alloys dated 26.09.2022 passed in case AY: 2014-15 Delhi Pvt. Ltd. no. 26/10364/2018-19, involving proceedings under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessees’ behest.
They are accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2. It next emerges during the course of hearing with very valuable assistance coming from the Revenue side that the instant set of ten cases involving the twin assessees herein i.e. Sh. Mukesh Kumar and M/s. Mahashiv Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., emanates from a common search action carried out by the learned departmental authorities on 23.07.2015 in different business and residential premises of Sh. Deepak Agarwal, Sh. Mukesh Kumar and other group of companies at Delhi wherein it was stated to have found/seized a lot of incriminating material indicating them to be accommodation entry providers through their various shell entities including, Sh. Mukesh Kumar and M/s. Mahashiv Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. herein. This made the learned Assessing Officer(s) to initiate section 153A proceedings against Sh. Mukesh 3 | P a g e Kumar and section 153C proceedings in case of M/s. Mahashiv Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. And that the learned Assessing Officer framed all of his corresponding assessments inter alia adding various amounts on “substantive” basis mainly in the appellant Sh. Mukesh Kumar’s hands and partly in case of M/s. Mahashiv Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.; involving varying sums. Learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has partly upheld the same. It is in this factual backdrop that both these assessees preferred their respective appeals before the CIT(A) wherein he has granted part relief to them which leaves the department aggrieved as well.
We thus clarify in this factual backdrop that Sh. Mukesh Kumar as well as the department’s pleadings reiterate their respective stands in entirety against and in support of the CIT(A)’s action granting part relief in the foregoing terms. Learned CIT(DR) Ms. Amisha S. Gupta vehemently argues that we ought to uphold the Assessing Officer(s)’ action herein in entirety inter alia treating Sh. Mukesh Kumar as an accommodation entry provider who has been held as assessable qua the main accommodation entry component and the remaining portion @ 20% has been held taxable
4 | P a g e in M/s. Mahashiv Metals and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.’s case. Her case therefore is that the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion granting part as well as full relief; as the case may be, does not deserve to be sustained.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessees’ as well as Revenue’s respective stands all along. A combined perusal of all these ten cases indicates that there arises yet another legal issue that all these impugned assessments are not sustainable in law as the learned prescribed authority had accorded a common approval under section 153D of the Act on 24.12.2018. Learned CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion at page 6 para 3.1 in M/s. Mahashiv Metal and Alloys Pvt. in assessment year 2013-14 reveals that the Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi had granted a common approval in 49 cases involving many assessees for assessment years 2010-11 to 2016-17. The factual position is hardly different in Sh. Mukesh Kumar’s cases as well as such a common approval dated 28.12.2018 is very much evident in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion at pages 43 (para 8) to page 44 (para 9) therein. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Various recent landmark
5 | P a g e precedents i.e. PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 467 ITR 186 (Del.), PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal (2024) 466 ITR 254 (SC) and PCIT Vs. MDLR Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del.) appear to have settled the issue in assessees’ favour and against the department that such a combined approval under section 153D and the consequential assessment framed therefore is a nullity. We thus accept the assessees’ instant first and foremost legal issue to quash all the impugned assessments herein framed by the Assessing Officer(s) u/s 153A or 153C of the Act; as the case may be, in very terms.