“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

Mahavir Transmission Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2632/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

dealings with same.” …. Q. 22. Please state about the bogus entry work done by you? Ans: I have not done bogus entry operation. Although I facilitated the bogus entry for a couple of parties through same entry operators. ……………………………… Q. 29. Please state your relation with Vijay Kumar, proprietor of Singh

Shree Mallikarjun Trad Invest Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

cogent material on record with respect to assessee’s case to demonstrate any nexus or live link between assessee and the so-called entry operators. The Ld. AR submitted that it is well settled principle that in the absence of any specific finding against the assessee based on any independent

Smt. Sneha Ankit Salecha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Ward, 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jalaj Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68Section 69C

wherein it stated that the scrip of M/s. Matra Kaushal Enterprises Ltd was a penny stock scrip and in connivance with the Promoter, Broker, Entry Operator and Exit provider accommodation entry has been provided to various beneficiary as Long term Capital Gain/Short term Capital Loss.  The AO has passed speaking ... mainly relied upon the report given by the investigation wing of the Income tax department, which included the statements given by the alleged entry operators and exit providers. We noticed that the AO did not carry out any independent enquiry in order to find out whether the assessee was part

M/S. Harivardhan Steel & Alloys, Thane vs. ITO-2(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 4195/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 46ASection 68

Vipul Vidur Bhatt was recorded u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which he had accepted that he was an entry operator and all the related entities controlled by him were used for providing bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries for getting commission. Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt also

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

alleged unexplained cash credit. In all these cases, the Department had alleged that the share application monies were received from persons who were ‘entry operators’ and the monies received by way of share application was nothing but was routing of unaccounted money of assessee in the form of subscription

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

also failed to produce any evidence against the assessee / her broker to have participated in the modus operandi along with entry operators. Even before us, the revenue failed to bring on record any material or evidence to show that the SEBI has proceeded against M/s. KGN or M/s AGSSL ... convert black money of assessee in active connivance with these statement-makers. Unless AO is able to point out from the report/statement of entry operator the role of assessee as a wrong doer or participant in the modus-operandi (as stated in the investigation wing), the impugned action of AO/Ld

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Mahesh Somabhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1854/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

booking LTCG and share were purchased by the determined buyer. 7. The assessee has no nexus or any relation with company, its director or entry operator 8. The assessee may have got only incidental benefit of price rise 9. The opportunity of cross examination has not been extended ... bogus, specific evidence has to be brought on record by the Revenue to prove that the assessee was involved in the collusion with the entry operator/ stock brokers for such an arrangements. In absence of such finding, it is not justifiable to link the fact or the finding unearthed

Shailesh K Patel-HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 68

transaction. It would be very difficult to gather direct proof of the meeting of minds of those brokers or sub-brokers or middlemen or entry operators and therefore, the test to be applied is the test of preponderance of probabilities to ascertain as to whether there has been violation ... merit acceptance as wealth of information and facts were on record which is the outcome of the investigation on the companies, stock brokers, entry operators etc. Based on those foundational facts the department has adopted the concept of "working backward" leading to the assessees. While at that relevant stage

Bindal Oils Pvt Ltd, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Ward, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 741/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 69C

assessment proceedings, the statement of Shri Trilok Goel was recorded and further Shri Trilok Goel had admitted to deal with business of cash entry operator to amounting of Rs. 26,04,250/- in the year under consideration 6.4 The AO treated the amount of Rs. 26,04,250/- as unexplained

DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata vs. Amicus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

bogus Share capital by the appellant - running into 17 pages. The second document running into 39 pages constitutes copies of statements of the alleged entry operators. This is mentioned in the show-cause, in this regard, reproduced by the AO in his order. The AO, on page

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 403/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 132(4)Section 68

claim of the assessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to prove that the assessee was involved in the collusion with the entry operator/ stockbrokers for such a scam. In the absence of such finding how is it possible to link their wrong doings with the assessee. Further

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 402/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 132(4)Section 68

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 401/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 132(4)Section 68

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 400/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 132(4)Section 68

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 399/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 132(4)Section 68

Piyush Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 555/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 142Section 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

Synergyone Infrastructure & Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4936/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the learned AO and almost all payments were subjected to Tax Deducted at source and have been made by account payee cheques. The appellant hereby requests the addition may please be deleted."

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 37(1)

that the assessee has paid Rs.125 Cr. on account of sub- contracting and are controlled by Sh. Praveen Aggarwal, a well known Kolkata based entry operator who has been in the business of providing accommodation entries and bogus bills to different companies. On the basis of information collected in search

Vicky Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, C.I.T DR

Section 132(4)

Vicky Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 427/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, C.I.T DR

Section 132(4)