“entry operator”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 682,071 judgments

The decision most relied on for entry operator is CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal (328 ITR 656), cited in 230 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on entry operator

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

328 ITR 656 · 2010 · High Court

230

citing judgments

When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani

69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported

142

citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court

392 ITR 444 · 2017 · High Court

111

citing judgments

For valid initiation of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must possess tangible material and apply independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. Reassessment cannot be based on mere borrowed satisfaction or unverified information without proper scrutiny.

2 CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri

33 Taxmann.com 281 · 2013 · High Court

100

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 against legal representatives of a deceased assessee requires a demonstrable 'reason to believe' that income escaped assessment, often based on third-party information such as alleged accommodation entries.

Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd.

9 SCC 109 · 2007 · Reported

citing judgments

When a State Act has obtained presidential assent, its repugnant provisions prevail over the provisions of a Central Act in that State, even if both laws relate to subjects in the Concurrent List. This principle was applied to determine repugnancy between the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

CIT v. Sanghamitra Bharali

361 ITR 481 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Capital gains arising from sham transactions, particularly those involving penny stocks designed to appear genuine, are not exempt under Section 10(38) but are taxable as unaccounted income brought into the books.

CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd.

214 ITR 583 · 1995 · High Court

citing judgments

When a sum is credited on account of share capital or share premium, the assessee must establish the existence, identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants, going beyond mere submission of documents. The Assessing Officer has the power to investigate and lift the corporate veil to ascertain the bonafides of such transactions.

Income Tax Vs. India Discount Co. Ltd. 75 ITR 191 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Provincial Farmers (P) Ltd.

245 ITR 421 · 2000 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The entry in the books of accounts is not determinative of the true nature of a transaction for income tax purposes; the substance of the transaction, rather than its accounting treatment, governs its taxability and deductibility.

Judgments citing entry operator

Saswat Retails Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 16/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

assessee was a beneficiary, which received sum of Rs.12,00,000/- through accommodation entry from A/c. no. 012884000000212 M/s. Invention Distributors Pvt. Limited. The entry operator charges commission @ 2% of the amount of entry accommodation, which comes to Rs.24,000/-. The ld. Assessing Officer had reason to 2 M/s. Saswat

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Lagan Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2165/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

deleting the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs ignoring the reality that the assessee could not be able to establish the identity and capacity of entry operators and their jamakharchi companies providing bogus accommodation entries. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the judgment ... passed an order in favour of the assessee. His further submission is that the assessee company has no connection with so-called alleged entry operators and it is unknown to the assessee whether any statement of those person or any third party has been recorded by the Investigation Wing

ACIT Circle - 22(1), Mumbai vs. Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 250

case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact of the case and modus operandi utilized by entry operators for providing accommodation entries under the garb of Long Term Capital Gain/ Short Term Capital Gain Loss by manipulating/rigging up the share price." 3. While

General Motors Technical Centre India Pvt Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle, 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

involved in any of the scrupulous activities or directly linked to one of the person who has involved in manipulation/rigging of share prices, entry operator or exit provider as observed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ziauddin A Siddique (supra). Therefore, there is no material

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. Sur Mangal Holdings Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1437/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68Section 69

proved with any cogent evidence on record that assessee was involved in claiming long-term capital loss by conniving with the so called entry operators and brokers or promotors who were alleged to have been involved in artificial price rigging of shares. The AO had not brought on record

ACIT, Circle-5.1, Kolkata vs. Yadav Prasad Tosniwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1730/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1730/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-2011) Acit, Circle-5.1, Kolkata Vs Yadav Prasad Tosniwal, 638, Basanmoyee Apartment Rabindra Sarani, Bagbazar, Kolkata-700003 Pan No. :Acipt6576E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Noted That The Appeal Is Filed Belatedly By 89 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed Condonation Application Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Application Of The Revenue, The Delay Of 89 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Additions To The Tune Of Rs 17,75,988/- Made U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act Made On Account Of Unaccounted Transactions, Ignoring The Evidences Brought On Record By The Assessing Officer To Establish That The Genuineness Of The Transaction & Creditworthiness Could Not Be Satisfactorily Proved In This Case?

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 68

According to the AO, the said profits were bogus profits taken from shell companies which were managed and controlled by various Kolkata based entry operators which were engaged in providing accommodation entries in various forms to the beneficiaries. 3 Thereafter the AO added the amount of Rs.17 ... assessee earn huge profits from transactions with certain brokers and that such profit is made from shell companies managed by 4 Kolkata based entry operators. Leave aside the details of the transactions entered into by the appellant, even names of the shell companies are not mentioned in the order

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

transferring the same to the assessee as an unsecured loan on 20.05.2021 indicates that Mr. Hiralbhai Maheshchandra Rangrej has been acted as an accommodation entry operator / agent. Whereas in the case of bank account statement submitted by Mansukhbhai Dalsukhbhai Parmar also, the same pattern is noticed. On 22.04.2021, an amount

(Late) Audinarayana Reddy Althuri Rep.by L/R Mahesh Reddy Althuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 39/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA D K ChhablaniFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Managing Director of the AMR India Limited observed that, the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus long term capital gains entry provided by the entry operators which is evident from the statement recorded from various persons coupled with other information found during the course of search in the case

Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd, Chandigarh vs. PCIT- Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the

ITA 449/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं . / I.T.A. Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd, Chandigarh vs. PCIT Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the

ITA 448/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं . / I.T.A. Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Vs Pcitchandigarh 1, Chandigarh Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd., Sco-98-99, Sector 34 Sub City Centre, Chandigarh 160002 स्थायीलेखासं./Panno. Aaaci2176E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Goel, C.A. Revenue By : Sh.Rohit Sharma, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing :19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement ;16/04/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: Both The Appeals Are Being Filed By The Assessee, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 Dated 28.03.2024& 23.03.2024 U/S 263 For The Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Common Grounds Of Appeal In Ita Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act during search and seizure operation on 23.12.2019 and he admitted that he was an entry operator who controlled various shell companies and provided accommodation entries to beneficiaries. The assessee company was also one of the beneficiaries and it had received ... recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act during search and seizure operation on 23.12.2019 and he admitted that he was an entry operator who controlled various shell companies and provided accommodation entries to beneficiaries. The assessee company was also one of the beneficiaries and it had received

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Cicle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 4850/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

submissions. 3. The AO observed that a search was simultaneously carried out in the case of Shri Ankit Bhageria who was alleged as the entry operator and involved in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through Shell companies operated by him including the assessee. His statements were also recorded during ... hide its illegal operations. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that submissions of audited accounts and bank statements of alleged entry operator are necessary ITA Nos. 4850/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.14 & 20/Del/2025 pre-requisite to give such entities a semblance of a genuine business. Filing of such documents does

M/S. Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1771/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court Dismissed The Writ Petition Filed By The Assessee Vide Judgment Dated 27-06-2016 In Sca No. 18512 Of 2015 & Upheld The Validity Of The Reassessment Notice.

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

three parties out of the imported purchase of gold and have received payment by cheques as follows: Sr. No. Name of Hawala Entry Operator Amount Rs. 1 M/s. Kunal Gems 7,89,60,000 2 M/s. Natasha Enterprises 1,06,90,000 3 M/s. Mohit International

Vipin Jain & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 56(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 910/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

indirect connection with the assessee nor there is any reference that assessee was any kind of 14 beneficiary of accommodation entry by any entry operator. So much so, there is no reference to the scrip namely Alps Motors Finance Limited. Otherwise also, such a statement cannot be the sole basis ... case that transaction of the assessee, both in case of purchase and sale are effected by any bogus entities controlled by any entry operator; or brokers have failed to maintain KYC norms; or there is any statement that entities involved in price movement or scrip operator or promoters of listed

Dhanottam Vasant Lonkar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.214/Pun/2022

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54FSection 68

fact, such Property No. 268A Shivajinagar, Pune does not exist at all. It appears to be mistake on the part of Departmental Data Entry Operator is entering said address instead of 1286A Shivajinagar, Pune. In view of these facts, Supreme Court decision is not applicable to the facts of this ... have mentioned the address 268A, in place of 1268A, Shivaji Nagar in the PAN application or it was the mistake of the Data Entry operator if the details in the PAN data which is wrongly mentioned as 268A instead of 1268A. However, copy of PAN application should be filed

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Atul Ramchandra Kshirsagar, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 6294/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Kumar Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha, Ld. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

company from F.Y 2012 onwards. 23.2 The only objection of the AO is that the company Akhilesh Supplier Pvt Ltd was operated by one entry operator Shri Subhash K Agrawal and he had admitted that he was in the business of providing accommodation entries. It is seen from the assessment

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 3059/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

went ahead to observe that assessee is indulged in carrying out bogus purchase and sales transactions. According to him, on such transactions, entry operators on an average gets commission of 1%. Based on this, he estimated the commission both on purchase as well as sale to arrive at an amount ... transaction enhancing the income by Rs.4,22,69,707/-. We find that it is not a case of taking accommodation entry from the accommodation entry operators by the assessee. Furthermore, both ld. Assessing Officer and 19 ITA No.2813/Mum/2024 and ors. Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, AY 2017-18 ld. CIT(A) have

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 2814/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 2813/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

brokers/other entities were involved in price manipulation in the scrip thereby confirming the investigation of the department that the scrip is utilized by entry operators for providing accommodation entries under the garb of LTCG by manipulating/rigging up the share price?" 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Sanjeeta Chatterjee, Dubai vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Noida

ITA 2242/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Geemed Promoters P. Ltd., Central Circle-28, F-6, Second Floor, New Delhi. Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecg1614P Co No.114/Del/2018 (Ita No.2242/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Geemed Promoters P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, F-6, Second Floor, Central Circle-28, Vijay Chowk, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecg1614P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.01.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi Co No.114/Del/2018 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.298/16-17/Cit(A)-29 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 19.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-28, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10 Crore On Account Of (Paid - Up Share Capital, Share Premium & Security Premium) Credited In Its Books Of Accounts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Discharged Its Primary Onus To Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transaction During Assessment Proceedings.” 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any/All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Estate P. Ltd. have been routed through the appellant company by layering the funds and the appellant company was used as an entry operator, therefore, addition in the case of M/s MGC Estate P. Ltd. was made under section 68 of the IT Act of Rs.10 crore being the ultimate ... concerns with the help of the appellant (the company owned by Sh Ashok Kumar Tyagi). Since, the appellant company was held to be only entry operator during the course of 3 CO No.114/Del/2018 investigation/assessment proceedings, therefore, addition made in its hand deserve to be deleted. 11. Ground no.8 relates