“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

Mes. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO - 33(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2251/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 148Section 68

anything on record, maybe through a process of his own enquiry, to decisively prove that assessee has obtained bogus STCL through his connivance with entry operators / exit providers. No such enquiry or investigation is seen carried by the AO other than borrowing information to be used against the assessee from

Shanti Parboiling Industries, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 99/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Shri Rupal Jaian, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, (Addl. CIT)

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

extracted in his order at page 24 where in that remand proceeding AO confirmed this fact. The Id. CIT(A) discussed the statement of entry operators, he also called for copies of the statement from the ld. AO and have gone through the entire statement then he recorded his findings ... that yet nowhere in the statement the entry operators given specifically name of the appellant nor he deal with the fact that in the case of appellant equal and amount of cash was given which was routed through the capital gain in the form of LTCG. He further recorded

Yuvraj Ahuja, Moradabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Moradabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 8944/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usyuvraj Ahuja Vs. Dcit Kings Court Jail Road, Circle – 2 Civil Lines, Moradabad-244 001 Moradabad-244 001

Section 10(38)Section 68

clear that the claim of LTCG of Rs. 1,20,98,091/- on the alleged sale of shares is basically accommodation entry from the entry operator. The appellant is involved in the scam of accommodation entry. The shares in which he has invested belong to paper company. Its financial position ... found that the assessee’s claim of LTCG of Rs.1,20,98,091/- on alleged sale of shares is basically ‘accommodation entry’ from the entry operator. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the shares in which assessee is invested belong to paper company, the financial position is extremely poor

M/S. Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd, Rourkla vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 109/CTK/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate with Shri

Section 133ASection 153ASection 292CSection 69Section 69C

cases the assessee has been made known of the statement of the Director of the penny stock company or the stock broker, entry operator despite which those assessees could not make any headway. While on this issue, we need to consider as to whether 19 IT(SS)A No.31-44/CTK/2022

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Raipur vs. Harsha Rice Mills Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 170/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.156/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Harsha Rice Mills Private Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 156/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Sona Power Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaairet Aria &. / Ita No.15/Rpr/2020 Fauhur_ At / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: S/sshri Salil Kapoor, Tarun ChananaFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Singh Bhatia and Sameer Das Gupta (dummy directors of Kolkata based companies) recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act; and those of S/sh. Narendra Jain (entry operator) and his staff member Shri. Champak Mandal recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, it was, inter alia, intimated that 5 Sona Power Private Limited ... certain accommodation entry providers, viz. (i) S/ssh. Kali Kant Chowdhury, Arihant Jain and Chandresh Kumar Jain, directors were under the control of an infamous entry operator, viz. Sh. Narender Kumar Jain; and (ii) Sh. 11 Sona Power Private Limited Vs. ACIT, Central-2, Raipur ITA No. 15/RPR/2020 Sandeep Sharma, director

DCIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Bdr Builders & Developers P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Bdr Builders & Developers P. Ltd,B- Central Circle-15, 393, Zakir Nagar So, South East Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi-1100025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

received the information that: (i) M/s. GBPL has received entries of share capital of Rs. 7 crores from two companies of entry operator Sh. Himanshu Verma. (ii) M/s. GBPL has received entries of Rs. 5.655 crores from Mr. Roop Kishore Madan prop. Rhea Distribution Company who had huge cash & credit ... from M/s Saffpro Technologies Pvt. Ltd (STPL)& Rs 2 Cr from M/s Mithilanchal Investment Finance Pvt. Ltd. (MIFTL)] operated & managed by the entry operator Mr Himanshu Verma. Sh Himanshu verma had admitted in his search on 29.03.2012 that he is an entry operator, providing entries on various accounts including share

Diya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated herein above

ITA 1929/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Diya Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 1373, Rani Bagh, Shakur Ward-7(3), Basti, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccd3991L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

u/s.148/143[3] holding the credit of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained credit u/s 68. The AO has also discussed the modus operandi of the entry operator S K Jain and his associates in the assessment order. In spite of sufficient opportunities having been provided the assessee could submit mere

Parvinder Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 8153/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 148

Pine View Construction & Traders Investigation Wing of Pvt. Ltd. is a beneficiary of accommodation the Income-tax entries received from certain established assessment. entry operators identified by the Investigation Wing during the period relevant to A. Y 2004-05. A comprehensive investigation was carried out by the Investigation Wing ... identification of entry operators engaged in the business of money laundering for the beneficiaries and on the basis of investigation carried out and evidences collected, a detailed report has been forwarded. In the instant case, the assessee is found to be the beneficiary of accommodation entry from such entry operators

Sushila Devi Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6354/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 151Section 68Section 69C

return of income. On the receipt of the information from the Pr. DIT (Investigation), Kolkata, it came to the light that various entry operators and stock brokers were involved in providing entries for bogus long term capital gain. The Assessee was found one of the beneficiaries by investing

Mother Gian Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO(E) Ward - 1(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8173/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mother Gian Educational Vs Ito(E), Society, F-I/U, Vishakha Ward-1(4), Enclave, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aabtm0218K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tarun Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2023

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

That the addition has been made and sustained in violation of principles of natural justice -without giving an opportunity to cross examine the "alleged entry operators". 10. That without prejudice to the above grounds the appellant society being registered under section 12A of the Act ought to be allowed application ... learned Assessing officer has alleged that the appellant society has channelized it's undisclosed income by availing accommodation entries of Rs.4,50,000 through entry operator Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal and also paid commission of Rs.11,250. The basis of this allegation it seems is the investigation done by Investigation

Jatin Garg & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(5), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5652/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2)Section 68

ground of appeal in certain cases of beneficiaries of Bogus capital gain, share capital, loans, gifts etc from non descript penny stock companies through entry operators and other cases [where there are strong documentary evidences are available against the assessee, that assessee was not allowed the opportunity to cross examine

Hemant Kumar Agarwal, Cuttack vs. Addl.CIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 166/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)

revenue to show that the broker engaged by the assessee was one of the operator identified by the investigation wing at Kolkata as an entry operator. The assessee’s name has also not been mentioned by any of the operators, whom the revenue has investigated and whose statements have been

Hemant Kumar Agarwal, Cuttack vs. Addl.CIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 165/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

Annexure-C and C1 were transferred to a number of entities which are mostly entities already identified as the companies controlled by the entry operators, few of them have been listed in Annexure-1. III. The fund was rotated among the entities detailed in Annexure-C, C1 and Annexure ... cash in primary accounts discussed in Annexure-C and s symbolized by various companies (created for the purpose re-1, Annexure-S) operated by entry operators by entry operators, the unaccounted funds have been entered In the regular books of accounts of the beneficiary companies. (ii) in view

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 588/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator 'has admitted before the Investigation Wing that they had given bogus purchase bills to many persons including the appellant ... against the reopening held that the AO has received report from investigation wing Mumbai, which indicate that the assessee is beneficiary of the accommodation entry operators. The accommodation entry provider admitted before investigation wing that he has given such entry to various persons; based on such report

Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 569/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Late Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Surat

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

against the reopening held that the AO has received report from investigation wing Mumbai, which indicate that the assessee is beneficiary of the accommodation entry operators. The accommodation entry provider admitted before ITA 1706/AHD/2016/AY.2010-11 (Late) Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora investigation wing that he has given such entry to various persons ... engaged in providing accommodation entries, held that where after scrutiny assessment the assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that well known entry operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, assessing officer was justified in re- opening assessment. Further