THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN
(DELHI BENCH "F" NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA NO. 68/DEL/2011
(Assessment Year: 2002-03)
ITO Vs. Prompt Buildcap (P) Ltd.
Ward 14(4), F-22. First Floor,
C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Geetanjali Enclave
New Delhi New Delhi
PAN : AAACP8669D
(Applicant) (Respondent)
ASSESSEE BY : Sh. Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR.
REVENUE BY : Shri P.K. Mishra, CA
Date of hearing : 17.02.2015
Date of pronouncement : 25.02.2015
ORDER
PER C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the
order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XVII dated
29.10.2010 in appeal no. 188 / CIT(A) XVII/ Del/ 2009-10 for
assessment year 2002-03.
2 ITA NO. 68/ Del/2011
2. The revenue has raised following grounds in this appeal :-
"1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,
the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.
52,54,284/- made by the AO on account of accommodation
entries received during the year from M/s JRD Stock
Brocker Pvt. Ltd.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law
the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee
had introduced unaccounted money in the books of
accounts with the help of accommodation entry providers
which has been exposed by deep and detailed
investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing of the
Department.
3. That the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the
Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that the assessee
was uncooperative during the course of assessment
proceedings and did not produce the Director of M/s, J R D
Stock Brockers Pvt. Ltd. and also the bank account of this
company and therefore the A O had to complete the order
on the basis of the information available with the
Investigation Wing."
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the
assessing officer asked the assessee to file the details of sale and
purchase of shares along with confirm copy of account of broker and
the copy of bank statement. The AO also asked the assessee to
reconcile the copy of account of sale and purchase of shares and
complete copy of account of J R D Stock brockers from where the
assessee has taken accommodation entry and the copy of account of
3 ITA NO. 68/ Del/2011
Vaish Cooperative Bank, Kamla Nagar from entry has been received
by the assessee and copy of statement of AVN AMRO bank in which
the amount has been deposited. The assessing officer noted that the
assessee had not filed the copy of account of J R D Stock Brokers
and their bank statement. The AO after examine the explanation and
details submitted by the assessee concluded that there was an
arrangement between the assessee and M/s J R D Stock Brokers
Pvt. Ltd. to take entry from a bogus concern and the assessee made
cash payment to the said broker and in turn the assessee received
cheque from such entry provider. The AO treated the entire amount
of Rs. 52,54,284/- the income of the assessee and the same was
added to the return income of the assessee for the year under
consideration.
4. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) which was
allowed granting relief for the assessee on this issue. Now, the
revenue is before this tribunal on this issue with the grounds has
reproduced above.
4 ITA NO. 68/ Del/2011
5. Apropos, ground no. 1, 2 & 3 of the revenue, the Ld.
Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the CIT(A) erred in
deleting made by the AO on account of accommodation entries
received during the year by the assessee from M/s J R D Stock
Brokers Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. DR , Further, contended that the first
appellate authority ignored the fact that the assessee had introduced
its own unaccounted money in the book of accounts with the help of
accommodation entry providers which has been exposed by deep
and detailed investigation carried out by the investigation wing of the
department. The Ld. DR also contended that the CIT(A) fail to
appreciate the relevant fact that the assessee was not cooperating
during the assessment proceedings and did not produce the Director
of M/s J R D Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and their statement of bank
accounts with the assessee company. Therefore, the assessing
officer was quite justified in completing the assessment and making
the addition on the basis of the information available before him
which was received from the investigation wing.
5 ITA NO. 68/ Del/2011
6. Replying to the above, the Ld. Assessee's Representative (AR)
contended that the assessee submitted all required details which
were available with it during the assessment proceedings except
some bank statements which were also submitted during first
appellate proceedings as additional evidence. The Ld. AR, further,
contended that the CIT(A) asked the AO to submit remand report
and comments on the additional evidence and the assessing officer
did not made any adverse comment therefore, the same was rightly
admitted and considered by the CIT(A) while allowing appeal of the
assessee. Supporting the impugned order the Ld. AR vehemently
contended that while the AO could not bring any positive evidence on
the record to substantiate his conclusion and the Director of M/s J R
D Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. in his statement recorded on oath by the AO
has confirmed the transaction entered into by the assessee then the
baseless addition made by the AO cannot be sustained.
7. On careful consideration of above submissions and perusal of
the record placed before us, inter alia, assessment order, impugned
order, remand report and other relevant documents at the outset we
6 ITA NO. 68/ Del/2011
note that during the assessment proceedings the assessee could not
produce Director of M/s J R D Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd., but during
remand proceedings the AO recorded the statement of Director Shri
Ashok Gupta on oath, who supported the transaction. We also note
that the assessing officer also found himself satisfied about the
explanation of the assessee that the Director Shri Ashok Gupta and
Smt. Nilima Gupta were out of India from 20.12.2009 to 08.02.2010.
We also note that during the assessment proceedings required bank
statement was and the confirmed copy of account of J R D Stock
Brokers Pvt. Ltd. with the assessee for A. Y. 2002-03 was also
submitted by the Director Shri Ashok Gupta before the AO during
remand proceedings effectively substantiating and confirming the
transactions effected during the financial year relevant to the
assessment year under consideration with the assessee. From the
operative para 3.3. at page 9 of the impugned order, we observe that
the CIT(A), after considering the remand report, granted relief for the
assessee with following findings and conclusion :
"3.3. I have carefully considered the submissions of Ld.
AR, assessment order and remand report of the AO. It is
seen that the AO made addition on the ground that the
7 ITA NO. 68/ Del/2011
appellant has taken entry from M/s J R D Stock Brokers
(P) Ltd. However, the AO could not bring any positive
evidence on the record to substantiate his conclusions. On
the contrary the director of M/s JRD Stock Brokers (P) Ltd.
in his statement recorded on oath by the AO has confirmed
the transaction entered into by the appellant. He has also
submitted the copy of the account of appellant and copy of
contract note and bills in respect of sale and purchase of
the shares. In view of the above facts, I am of the view that
the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained.
Therefore, the addition made by the AO is deleted. This
ground of appeal is allowed."
8. In view of above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A)
granted relief for the assessee on justified and cogent reasons. The
assessing officer made addition on information of investigation wing
but the AO could not bring any positive or sustainable evidence or
any other adverse material on the record to substantiate his
conclusions. Per contra, the assessing officer recorded statement of
Sh. Ashok Gupta, the Director of the J.R.D. Stock Broker who
confirmed the transaction supporting the verified copy of account
with the assessee. In view of above stated facts and circumstances,
we reach to the conclusion and the addition made by the AO was not
sustainable which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) during first
8 ITA NO. 68/ Del/2011
appellate proceedings. We are unable to see any infirmity or any
other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order and thus, we
upheld the same.
9. In the result ground no. 1, 2 and 3 of the revenue being devoid
of merits are dismissed. Finally, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 25th February, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.C. Meena) (C.M.Garg)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated 25th Feb. 2015
B.Rukhaiyar
Copy forwarded to
1. APPELLANT
2. RESPONDENT
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. CIT (ITAT), New Delhi.
AR, ITAT
N. Delhi
9 ITA NO. 68/ Del/2011
Sl. Description Date
No.
1. Date of dictation by the Author 24.02.2015
2. Draft placed before the Dictating 24.02.2015
Member
3. Draft placed before the Second 24.02.2015
Member
4. Draft approved by the Second 24.02.2015
Member
5. Date of approved order comes to 24.02.2015
the Sr. PS
6. Date of pronouncement of order 25.02.2015
7. Date of file sent to the Bench 25.02.2015
Clerk
8. Date on which file goes to the
Head Clerk
9. Date of dispatch of order
10 ITA NO. 68/ Del/2011
|