“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

B.R Goel & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 47(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 9084/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 B.R. Goel & Sons (Huf) Ito, Ward 47(4), Drum 1228, Kaccha Bagh, Shape Building, I.P Chandani Chowk, Delhi Vs. Extension, New Delhi 110006 110002 Pin Aadhb5670C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri C.S Anand, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.S Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

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

Pearls Entertainment P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2179/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Senior DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

initial onus of creditworthiness of share holder, genuineness of transaction, the AO relying on the findings of the Department in the assessments of the entry operators of Shri S. K. Jain held that the appellant has received Rs.2,00,00,000/- as share capital as accommodation entry and added

Hazari Lal Kesari Chand, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-48(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8561/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

from Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 31,11,461/- from Avi Exports (aggregating to Rs.62,12,124/-) provided by entry operator 5 Hazari Lal Kesari Chand, ND. Sh. Rajender Jain through his aforesaid shell companies. The Ld. A.O. accordingly made addition of Rs. 62, 12,124/- and computed ... standi in the light of the evidences marshaled by the AO, the statement of Rajinder Jain and the modus operandi followed by the accommodation entry operators as admitted in the statements and reproduced supra. Before me, the AR of the appellant insisted that the transactions were genuine and were reflected

Mekaster Finlease Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 953/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR

various premises of Shri Surinder Kumar Jain and Shri Virendra Jain and its group concerns. He noted that these companies supported by these entry operators were entering into bogus transactions. He noted that accommodation entries were provided in the shape of share 3 ITA No.953/Del./2020 application money, capital gain

Santosh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1696/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhrysantosh Vs. Ito 190-191, 2Nd Floor, Ward – 37(1) Pocket-2, Sector – 22, New Delhi Rohini, New Delhi- 110085 Pan No. Dcaps 8853 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri B. M. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

deposited be considered as income or peak credit theory be followed in this case. Adding entire deposit amount is not correct/logical. The assessee is entry operator. Case laws give only percentage to be adopted as income of deposits. 8. Evidence collected behind the back of the assessee was never given

Nicetel Electronics Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4768/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69C

personal reasons. • Where there is admission before the investigation wing of the department that the subscribers to share capital had availed accommodation from bogus entry operators creditworthiness must be proved and these factual aspects and circumstances as proved before investigation wing cannot be simple to ignore. • Documents must also stand

Pegasus Integrated Systems (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1469/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.P. Kipgen, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

group of cases based at Delhi. It came to the knowledge of the department that this group is found to be a group of entry operators providing accommodation entries to beneficiaries. 8. The case of the assessee company was also under section

Shyam Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4908/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

number 27 I.T.A. No. 4908/Del/2018 AND I.T.A. No. 4907/Del/2018 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

Optimist Electronics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4907/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukeshkumar Lalchand Jain, Surat

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

ITA 452/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.452/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mukeshkumar Lalchand Jain, 2(3)(8), Room No.407, 4Th Prop. Of M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Vs. Office No. 401, Floor, H. Centre, Adajan-Hajira Road, No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Adajan, Surat-395009 Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agupj3281A (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

Section 147Section 148

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 ... 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

Krc Gems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6757/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Ananad, Sr.DR

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

substantiate the introduction of Rs.1 crore towards share capital as well as share premium. The so-called statement of Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma, the entry operator who admitted to have provided entries to the assessee company has not been provided to the assessee nor the assessee was given an opportunity

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Anil Pukhraj Jain, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 89/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

Section 143(3)

Gaurav Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

ITA 576/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagaurav Singhal Vs. Ito, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aohps3787D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Kayan and its was found he was involved in providing accommodation entry in the form of bogus long term capital gains in connivance with entry operators and promoters of scripts at Calcutta Stock Exchange as well. He named penny stocks at BSE and CSE which were used for the purpose ... Kayan and it was found he was involved in providing accommodation entry in the form of bogus long term capital gains in connivance with entry operators and promoters of scrips at Calcutta Stock Exchange as well. He named penny stocks at BSE and CSE which were used for the purpose

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Anshuman Ramdayalji Kumawat, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 22/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

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

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Anshuman Ramdayalji Kumawat, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 16/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 15/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Rajesh Kumar Pamecha, Ajmer

In the result the ground No

ITA 87/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

Mahesh Kumar Agrawal HUF, Bhartpur vs. ITO, Bhartpur

In the result, the ground no

ITA 250/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10(35)Section 10(38)Section 147oSection 148

also the AO in the reasons recorded mentioned that it had come to his knowledge that the persons from whom amount was received were entry operator and provided the entries to the assessee after receiving the amount in cash, however, nothing was brought on record that how and in what ... manner the persons from whom the assessee received the loans were entry operator and that as to how the cash was paid by the assessee. In fact the aforesaid conclusion of the A.O. is unhelpful in understanding as to whether the AO applied his mind to the material, particularly when

Smt. Manju Agrawal, Bhartpur vs. ITO, Bhartpur

In the result, the ground no

ITA 249/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10(38)