sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 Sh. Jai Prakash 261, Block E-19, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi. vs ITO Ward 39(5), New Delhi.
 Vikram Krishnan vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
 ITO vs. Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
 Sir Mohd. Yusuf Trust vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 NuPower Renewables Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 CIT vs. Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
 ITO, Ward-271(1),Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi vs. M/s. B2B Management, 5/47, Shyam Singh Street, Gopi Nath, New Delhi
 Shri Opinder Singh Virk Pravesh Kumar Sharma, R/o 493- L, Model Town, Karnal. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Karnal.
 SplendorLandbase Ltd., Splendor Forum, 502-511 Plot No 3, Jasola District Centre,New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3, New Delhi.
 Shri Sajan Kumar Jain, C/o Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi.
 ITO, Ward-1(3), New Delhi vs. Accord Overseas Pvt Ltd, A-18/2, Wazipur Indl Area, Delhi
 Jyoti Kachroo C/o. Fiberfill Interiors and Constructions, B-64, Sector-65 vs JCIT Range-36 New Delhi
 Mynd Solutions P. Ltd., Plot No.280, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon. vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi.
 
 

ITO, Ward-1(3), New Delhi vs. Accord Overseas Pvt Ltd, A-18/2, Wazipur Indl Area, Delhi
March, 14th 2019
                    INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      DELHI BENCH "D": NEW DELHI
             BEFORE SMT BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                 AND
            SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                             ITA No. 5207/Del/2015
                           (Assessment Year: 2006-07)
                  ITO,                  Vs.    Accord Overseas Pvt Ltd,
               Ward-1(3),                     A-18/2, Wazipur Indl Area,
                New Delhi                               Delhi
                                                 PAN: AABCA8860G
               (Appellant)                          (Respondent)


               Revenue by :                Ms. Naina soin Kapil, Sr. DR
               Assessee by:                           None
             Date of Hearing                      31/01/2019
          Date of pronouncement                   13/03/2019


                                   ORDER

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1.   This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-I,
     New Delhi dated 11.06.2015 for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
2.   The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

     1.    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has
           erred in quashing the notice u/s 148 and the assessment thereof when
           the A. 0. had recorded his satisfaction and this recording had been
           approved by the Pr. CIT as per provisions of the I. T. Act, 1961.
     2.    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred
           in not appreciating the fact that the purchases shown by the appellant
           from M/s. Heer International and M/s. Omaxe Overseas were found to
           be bogus/non-genuine and thus cannot be construed as disclosure of
           material facts truly and fully.
     3.    The Ld. C1T(A) erred in relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi
           High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Suren International Private Limited (ITA No.
           289/2012) & CIT Vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. (ITA
           271/2012) while quashing the assessment when the facts of the two
           cases are different from the instant case."
3.   The assessee is a company who filed its return of income for Rs. 41239/­
     and assessment under section 143 (3) was completed on 7/11/2008
     determining the total income of INR 61956/­.



                                                                           Page | 1
4.   The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148
     on 30/3/2011. The main reason for reopening was that that information
     was received from CIT (c), Delhi that two persons Shri navneet Jain and
     Vaibhav Jain have provided accommodation entries through 37 entities
     controlled by them was found during the course of assessment proceedings
     under section 153A in those cases. Both these persons have also confirmed
     the above facts.    The learned assessing officer examined the assessment
     records and found that assessee has purchased INR 8119572/­ with these
     persons controlled entities. It was also found that these two persons were
     engaged in giving bogus accommodation entries and above two entities are
     controlled by these two persons. The learned assessing officer further noted
     that such nature of the transactions undertaken by the assessee company
     has come to light only after the detailed investigation carried out by the
     investigation wing, Delhi and during the course of assessment proceedings
     in the case of those two persons.       The learned AO further noted this
     tantamount to fresh information.      As the assessee was found to be the
     beneficiary of bogus accommodation entries provided by them. This also
     represents the undisclosed income of the assessee company, which has not
     been offered to tax by the assessee in its return filed. Therefore, the learned
     assessing officer noted that it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of
     the income tax act.     In response to the notice u/s 148 the assessee
     company wide letter dated 2/9/2013 submitted that the original return filed
     by the assessee on 11th/6/2006 may be treated as return filed in response
     to the above notice. The copy of the reasons was also handed over to the
     authorised representative of the assessee company wide order sheet entry
     dated 3/9/2013. Subsequently the notice u/s 143 (2) of the act was issued
     on 9/10/2013. The assessee against the reopening of the assessment filed
     no objections.
5. Therefore, assessment proceedings commenced and the learned assessing officer requested the assessee to file several details of party wise purchases and details in nature of purchases made from about two entities mentioned in the reasons, which are controlled by the entry operators. The learned assessing officer further issued notices u/s 133 (6) of the income tax act to both the parties and it was found that there is no such person at the given Page | 2 address. Therefore, the learned assessing officer issued a show cause notice on 24/10/2013. Subsequently on 9/1/2014, the assessee submitted the detail stating that the case of the assessee was assessed u/s 143 (3) of the income tax, act and all the information and details were already submitted at the time of original assessment. It was further stated that there may be a chance of change of address in the case of these parties and the assessee is trying to contact these persons to get the present address. It was further stated that the goods purchased from these parties are exported which are duly accounted for in the books of account. Assessee also stated that the purchases were genuine and the assessee made payment for these purchases through account payee cheques. A copy of the account of the above parties along with the copy of the bank account of the assessee was produced. The learned assessing officer considered the explanation furnished by the assessee and stated that payment for purchases made through account payee cheque does not have any weight in view of the information that these are the bogus accommodation entries. After that, the assessing officer noted about the modus operandi of the entry operators in the present case and further issued a show cause notice on 22/1/2013. In response to that notice, nobody attended. Therefore the learned assessing officer reached to a conclusion that assessee has failed to discharge its onus to prove that the purchases made during the financial year 2005 ­ 06 relevant to the assessment year 2006 ­ 07 from the about to parties are not genuine. Therefore he held that these are bogus purchases and therefore an addition of INR 8 119572/­ was made to the total income of the assessee. The assessment order u/s 143 (3) section 147 of the income tax act was passed on 28/2/2014 determining total income of the assessee at INR 8 181528/­ against the original assessment u/s 143 (3) of the act of INR 6 1956/­. 6. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of income tax appeals ­ 1, New Delhi. The assessee challenged the assessment order against reopening as well as on the merits of the case. On the reopening assessee submitted that AO was not justified in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the income tax act, as there was no escapement of income two of the assessee to Page | 3 disclose material facts fully and truly necessary for the assessment. The main ground of the argument of the assessee was that in the reasons recorded there is no satisfaction on the part of the learned assessing officer with respect to the escapement of income and there is no whisper that the appellant has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The learned CIT ­ A in para number 5.3.1 of the order noted that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded by the assessing officer that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. He further stated that the learned assessing officer is also not mentioned as to whether Mr. Vaibhav Jain as stated in the statement that they have provided accommodation entry to the appellant also therefore the learned CIT ­ A relying on the jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs Surren international private limited held that the reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 of the act is invalid. The learned CIT also noted that the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Viniyas finance and investment private limited is also on the similar facts and therefore requires to reopening notice. However, he did not decide on the issue of the addition on the merit and held that it is academic in nature. 7. The learned assessing officer aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT ­ A has preferred an appeal before us. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that there is no defect in the notice for reopening. He stated that the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer perfectly in order. It was further mentioned that the learned assessing officer has mentioned that assessee has obtained accommodation entry from two accommodation entry providers. The assessee before the assessing officer has not disclosed these facts and therefore there is a perfect failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the computation of the income of the assessee. 8. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore this appeal is decided based on the information available on record. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The originally the income of the assessee was assessed u/s 143 (3) on 7/11/2008. Subsequently the information was received from the investigation wing that assessee has obtained the Page | 4 accommodation entry from two accommodation entry providers. The assessee has purchased goods from two different entities, which are out of 37 entities controlled by the entry operators. The assessee has purchased goods from these parties. Therefore the learned assessing officer recorded the reasons wherein in paragraph number 4 of the reasons recorded has clearly mentioned that the true nature of the transaction undertaken by the assessee company has come to light only after the detailed investigation carried out by the investigation wing and during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of the entry operators. Therefore, it is apparent that the learned assessing officer has come to know because of the failure on the part of the assessee about the true nature of the transaction. Therefore, according to the learned assessing officer has noted the failure on account of the assessee to disclose fully and truly that these purchases are from accommodation entry providers. The learned CIT ­ A has quashed the assessment only on the reason that the learned assessing officer has failed to mention in the reasons recorded that the reopening has been made on account of failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose to the assessing officer the material facts of the computation of the total income. According to us the learned assessing officer has clearly mentioned in the reasons recorded, the true nature of the transaction undertaken by the assessee has not been disclosed by the assessee, which has become known only after the investigation done by the investigation wing as well as the statement of the entry operators. Therefore, it is apparent that the assessee has alleged that failure is on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly. The learned CIT ­ A has relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court [2013] 35 taxmann.com 398 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income tax ­ III v. Suren International (P.) Ltd. wherein honourable High Court has recorded as under "15. Having stated the above, we are also unable to accept the contention that there has been failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts in his return as, first of all, there is no such allegation in the reasons as furnished to the assessee; secondly, we cannot ignore the fact that the enquiry into the share application money had been conducted in detail by the Assessing Officer in the first round of assessment. Having framed his assessment after enquiry into Page | 5 the identity, genuineness and the creditworthiness of the share applicants, it would not be open for the Assessing Officer to re- examine the same without there being any material allegation of failure, on the part of the assessee, to make a full and true disclosure.......... 16. In the reasons as furnished by the Assessing Officer, we find that there is neither any allegation that the assessee had failed to truly disclose any material facts at the time of assessment, nor can we readily infer the same in view of the fact that a detailed enquiry had been conducted by the Assessing Officer with regard to the identity and creditworthiness of the share-applicants and genuineness of the transactions in relation to the share application money received by the assessee. Further the mere statement that the DRI has seized certain goods of the assessee and levied a penalty also cannot be stated to be a reason for reopening of assessment of the assessee as the said statement made is neither followed by the recording of a belief that the income escaped on that count or that the assessee has failed to disclose all relevant material, fully and truly, at the stage of the first assessment." (Underline supplied by us)
10. on reading the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer in the present case it can be readily inferred that the assessee has not disclose true nature of the transactions undertaken by the assessee which has come to light only after the detailed investigation carried out by the investigation and during the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of the entry operators. Even the learned CIT ­ A also not verified that whether in the 1st round of the appeal the assessee furnish the relevant details and the learned assessing officer is applied his mind 2 that are not. Even otherwise, the decision rendered by the honourable Delhi High Court was on different facts. Further on careful perusal of the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court it can be noted that it is not always necessary for the assessing officer to mention specific word in the reasons recorded for the reopening of the assessment about "failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts" Therefore the decision relied upon by the learned CIT ­ A is distinguishable. 11. Further on identical facts and circumstances beyond 4 years the honourable Delhi High Court in [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/ [2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) principal Commissioner of income tax vs. Paramount communications private limited has upheld the reopening beyond 4 years Page | 6 even though there was no mention in the reasons recorded that assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly the material facts. Against the above decision, the special petition filed before the honourable Supreme Court is also dismissed. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT ­ A has wrongly quashed the reopening of assessment. Accordingly, ground numbers 1 ­ 3 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer are allowed. 12. Appeal of the learned assessing officer is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/3/2019 -Sd/- -Sd/- (BEENA A PILLAI) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13/03/2019 Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Page | 7
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Mission

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions