ARISON ASSOCIATES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 3(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the AO accepted the assessee's involvement in accommodation entries, the addition should have been on account of commission income, as done in prior years. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 0.5% of the total investments/advances.

What were the facts?

The AO made an addition of Rs.45,83,199/- by treating the entire non-current investment/long-term advances as interest-bearing. The AO suspected the assessee was providing accommodation entries based on past assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of alleged accommodation entries was justified, and if so, on what basis.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 06/07/2023Pronounced: 10/07/2023

ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 10.10.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2016- 17.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.45,83,199/- made by the AO on ad-hoc basis by treating the total amount shown in non current investment / long term advances of Rs.79799134/- as interest bearing investment.

3.

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

4.

Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusal of bank statement of the assessee the AO found that there are deposits to the extent of Rs.55766399/- and withdrawal to the extent of Rs.55814799/-. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to explain the true nature of these transactions. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee has used this account to provide accommodation entries with some ulterior motive. The AO found that the assessee has made investments / loans and advances of Rs.79799134/- and taking a leaf out of the assessment of A.Y. 2009-10 the AO observed that the assessee has been engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries and addition @ 0.5% was made in A.Y.2009-10 and in A.Y.2011-12 also the assessee has been providing accommodation entries. However, the AO applied 7 % on the total loans and advances/ investments of Rs.79799134/- and computed the income at Rs.5585939/- and deducting the returned income of Rs.100274/-. The AO made the addition of Rs.4583199/-.

5.

Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success.

6.

On careful consideration of the facts we are of the considered view that if the AO has accepted that the assessee has been providing accommodation entries and has been accepted as such in A.Y.2009-10 and 2011-12 then the AO should have made the addition only on account of commission income as done in the past years, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 0.5% of Rs.79799134/-and restrict that addition to Rs. 3.99 lacs.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →