Referred Sections: Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Section 132(4). section 68 section 131 Section 245D(4)
Referred Cases / Judgments B Kishore Kumar Vs CIT (62 taxmann.com 215, 234 Taxman 771) (Copy Enclosed) B Kishore Kumar Vs CIT (52 taxmann.com 449) Madras High Court confirmed (Copy Enclosed) Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT (31 taxmann.com 274, 215 Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143) (Copy Enclosed) CIT Vs M. S. Aggarwal [2018] 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) Smt Dayawanti Vs CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 308 (Delhi)/[2017] 245 Taxman 293 (Delhi)/[2017] M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd Vs ITO (2017-TIOL-238-SC-IT) (Copy Enclosed) Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi) ACIT Vs Hukum Chand Jain [2010] 191 Taxman 319 (Chhattisgarh) PCIT Vs NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) (Copy Enclosed) PCIT Vs NDR PROMOTERS PVT LTD (2019-TIOL-172-HC-DELIT) ITO Vs Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.4778/Del/2013) Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) (Copy Enclosed) Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 2018-TIOL-274-SC-IT (Copy Enclosed) CIT Vs MAF Academy (P.) Ltd (361 ITR 258) (Copy Enclosed)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'G': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND
KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE,
No.1156/Del/2019
ITA No.
2013-14
Assessment Year : 2013-
M/s Surya Processed Food Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Pvt.Ltd., Income Tax,
2nd Floor, Circle-8,
Central Circle-
Local Shopping Complex,
19, Local New Delhi.
Near Pushpa Bhawan,
Madangir,
New Delhi 110 062.
PAN : AAKCS7174G.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Nos.1157/Del/2019 & 1158/Del/2019
ITA Nos.1157/Del/2019
Years : 2013-
Assessment Year 2014-15
2013-14 & 2014-
M/s Surya Agrotech Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Infrastructure Limited, Income Tax,
2nd Floor, Circle-8,
Central Circle-
19, Local Shopping Complex, New Delhi.
Near Pushpa Bhawan,
Madangir,
New Delhi 110 062.
PAN : AALCS3053M.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellants by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate and
Shri Himanshu Agarwal, CA.
Respondent by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR.
Date of hearing : 16.04.2019
Date of pronouncement : 07.05.2019
ORDER
G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT :-
PER G.D.
2 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
These appeals by the assessees for the assessment years 2013-
14 and 2014-15 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-24,
New Delhi-24, New Delhi dated 7th January, 2019.
2. In all these appeals, common grounds have been raised.
Therefore, they are all being taken up together for consideration. The
grounds of appeal raised in the above appeals read as under :-
:-
ITA No.1156/Del/2019 :-
"1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in
law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, New
Delhi [`the Ld.CIT(A)'] , has erred in upholding the order of
the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-
08, New Delhi (`the Ld. Assessing Officer') in upholding the
addition of Rs.31,00,50,001 made u/s 68 of the Act on
account of receipt of share capital.
2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in
law, the Ld.CIT(A), has erred in upholding the order of the
Ld. Assessing Officer in upholding the addition of
Rs.77,51,250/- made u/s 37 of the Act on account of
alleged expenditure for commission incurred by the
applicant company for channelizing the above share
capital/share premium."
No.1157/Del/2019 :-
ITA No.1157 :-
"1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in
law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, New
Delhi [`the Ld.CIT(A)'], has erred in upholding the order of
the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-
08, New Delhi (`the Ld. Assessing Officer') in upholding the
addition of Rs.2,60,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act on
account of receipt of share capital.
2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in
law, the Ld.CIT(A), has erred in upholding the order of the
Ld. Assessing Officer in upholding the addition of
3 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
Rs.6,50,000/- made u/s 37 of the Act on account of alleged
expenditure for commission incurred by the applicant
company for channelizing the above share capital/share
premium."
No.1158/Del/2019 :-
ITA No.1158/Del/2019 :-
"1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in
law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, New
Delhi [`the Ld.CIT(A)'] , has erred in upholding the order of
the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-
08, New Delhi (`the Ld. Assessing Officer') in upholding the
addition of Rs.13,31,50,000 made u/s 68 of the Act on
account of receipt of share capital.
2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in
law, the Ld.CIT(A), has erred in upholding the order of the
Ld. Assessing Officer in upholding the addition of
Rs.33,28,750/- made u/s 37 of the Act on account of
alleged expenditure for commission incurred by the
applicant company for channelizing the above share
capital/share premium."
3. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned
counsel that both the above assessee companies are part of group
companies of Priya Gold group. That search and seizure proceedings
under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were conducted on 16th
December, 2014 in the case of Priya Gold group and its group
companies which included both the companies under appeal before us.
During the course of search, statement of Shri Shekhar Agarwal,
Director of M/s Surya Food & Agro Limited, which is the flagship
company of the group, was recorded under Section 132(4). In the said
statement, he accepted that the said group has earned unaccounted
income which has been routed as bogus share capital during the
financial year relevant to assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15. He
also admitted that the same income would be surrendered in the
respective assessment years. The group has surrendered the entire
4 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
undisclosed income of the group in its flagship company M/s Surya
Food & Agro Limited by filing petition before the Settlement
Commission. The additional income disclosed before the Settlement
Commission was `49,12,73,399/-. In paragraph 12 & 13 of the
application before the Settlement Commission, it was clearly
mentioned that the profit made outside books by the applicant was
utilized for making investment in the share capital of the group
concerns. The assessee has also given the name of both the
companies under appeal and the amount of share capital. That the
Settlement Commission has admitted the above application and also
passed the final order in which as against the income disclosed at
`49.12 crores, the income settled was `55.77 crores. The assessee as
well as Revenue both has accepted the order of the Settlement
Commission and which has become final. In view of the above, no
further addition for unexplained share capital in the hands of above
two assessees is called for otherwise it would be double taxation of the
same income.
4. Learned CIT-DR argued at length. He also furnished written
submission, which is being reproduced below :-
"In the above case, it is humbly submitted as follows:
1. In statement on oath recorded u/s 132(4) on 17.12.2014,
Sh. Shekhar Agarwal surrendered undisclosed income of
Rs. 31 Cr. in F.Y 2012-13 and Rs. 15.91 Cr. in F.Y 2014-15.
2. In revised return filed on 30.08.2016 assessee increased
an amount of Rs. 2.6 Cr. in A.Y 2013-14 and Rs. 28.40 Cr.
in A.Y 2014-15 on account of share application money.
However, no taxes were paid thereon.
In statement on oath recorded u/s 131(1) on 25.10.2016,
Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Director of assessee company, stated
that all taxes will be paid by 30.09.2016 but were not paid.
5 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
3. Detailed investigation was made with regard to
investment made in M/s Subh Shree Investment
Management P. Ltd. and M/s Neelkanth Vincom P.
Ltd.(pages 4 to 19 of AO) which showed that the entire
investment was on account of accommodation entries.
4. As stated in para 4.9 of AO , statement of directors Sh.
Navin Aggarwal and Sh. Manoj Aggarwal were recorded in
which they stated that Sh. Shekhar Agarwal was
responsible for managing the finance and accounts of
assessee group.
5. Statement of directors Ms. Beena Aggarwal, Chhavi
Aggarwal and Nidhi Aggarwal were recorded in which they
stated that they were dummy directors(pages 20 and 21
of AO).
6. As stated in para 4.12 of AO, various incriminating
documents were seized from premises of the assessee.
7. As stated on page 30 of AO, Sh. Shekhar Agarwal admitted
that unaccounted income earned through undisclosed
sources was routed to the assessee company. No statutory
register, minutes of meeting, share certificates and other
documents were produced.
8. As stated in para 4.19 of AO, bank statements of investor
companies reflected immediate introduction and
withdrawal of funds.
9. As stated in page 37 of AO, summons were issued to Sh.
Sudhir Satnaliwala but there was no compliance.
Investigation Wing Kolkata examined Sh. Debashish Dutta
who admitted providing accommodation entry to Priyagold
group of companies.
10.
10. As stated in page 38 of AO, statement of dummy
directors Sh Bijay Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Prakash Doshi
was recorded in which they admitted that they were
directors of entry operator Sh Debashish Dutta for earning
commission. Sh Pankaj Agarwal also admitted that he was
a dummy director.
6 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
11.
11. As stated in page 46 of AO, various incriminating
documents pertaining to pre-planning were seized.
12.
12. Various ban inquiries were conducted as discussed
on pages 47 to 54 of Assessing Officer.
13.
13. As stated in page 55 of AO, statement u/s 131(1) of
dummy directors Sh. Dinesh Kumar Pandey was recorded
in which he admitted that companies in which he or his
wife were directors are dummy companies.
14.
14. The assessee has failed to furnish justification for
receiving such huge share premium.
It is humbly submitted that the following decisions
may kindly be considered with regard to validity of
statement recorded u/s 132(4) of I.T.Act:
1. B Kishore Kumar Vs CIT (62 taxmann.com 215, 234
Taxman 771) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP against High
Court's order where it was held that since assessee himself
had stated in sworn statement during search and seizure
about his undisclosed income, tax was to be levied on
basis of admission without scrutinizing documents.
B Kishore Kumar Vs CIT (52 taxmann.com 449) Madras High
Court confirmed (Copy Enclosed)
2. Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT (31 taxmann.com 274, 215
Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that an addition in
assessee's income relying on statements recorded during
search operations cannot be deleted without proving
statements to be incorrect.
3. CIT Vs M. S. Aggarwal [2018] 93 taxmann.com 247 247 (Delhi)
(Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where in course
of block assessment proceedings, AO made addition to
assessee's undisclosed income in respect of gift, in view of
fact that assessee did not even know donor personally and,
moreover, he himself in presence of his Chartered
Accountant had made a statement under sec. 132(4)
7 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
admitting that said gift was bogus, impugned addition was
to be confirmed.
4. Smt Dayawanti Vs CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 308
(Delhi)/[2017] 245 Taxman 293 (D(Delhi)/[2017]
elhi)/[2017] 390 ITR 496
(Delhi)/[2016] 290 CTR 361 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where inferences
drawn in respect of undeclared income of assessee were
premised on materials found as well as statements
recorded by assessee's son in course of search operations
and assessee had not been able to show as to how
estimation made by Assessing Officer was arbitrary or
unreasonable, additions so made by Assessing Officer by
rejecting books of account was justified.
5. M/s Pebble I Investment -TIOL
(2017-
nvestment and Finance Ltd Vs ITO (2017 -
TIOL-
238-
238 SC-IT) (Copy Enclosed)
-SC-
where Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP challenging
the judgment, whereby the High Court had held that
statement made u/s 133A could be relied upon for
purposes of assessment, in absence of any contrary
evidence or explanation as to why such statement made
was not credible.
-TIOL
(2017-
M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd Vs ITO (2017 -
TIOL-
188-
188 HC-MUM
-HC- MUM- -IT) Bombay High Court confirmed (Copy
Enclosed)
6. Greenview Restaurant Vs ACIT [2003] 133 Taxman 4 432
32
(Gauhati)/[2003] 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati)/[2003] 185 CTR 651
(Gauhati) (Copy Enclosed)
"From facts, it was clear that there was a delay on the part
of the appellant and its partner in retracting the
statements recorded. The attention of the Court had also
not been drawn to any material on record to establish that
any attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to prove
the allegation of inducement, threat or coercion through
the witnesses. Having examined the impugned orders
rendered by the Tribunal with the reasonings in support of
its finding against the complaint of threat, inducement or
coercion, no good and sufficient reason was found to differ
from it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, having
regard to the materials on record, the appellant had failed
to establish that the statements of its partner had been
recorded in the course of the search by using coercion,
threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by
the appellant in that regard were dismissed and the
8 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
conclusion of the Tribunal on that count was
affirmed." [Para 9]
7. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230
Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee
had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding
surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also
not borne out in any contentions raised before lower
authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure
were justified (SURVEY CASE).
8. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] 81 taxmann.com 476
lhi) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that Where
(Delhi)
(De
assessee surrendered certain income by way of declaration
and withdraw same after two years without any
satisfactory explanation, it could not be treated as bona
fide and, hence, addition would sustain.
9. ACIT Vs Hukum Chand Jain [2010] 191 Taxman 319
(Chhattisgarh) when assessee did not retract his statement
immediately after search and seizure was over and in
return also no explanation was offered for surrender of
undisclosed income at time of search and seizure
operations under section 132(4), it could be said that
assessee had failed to discharge onus of proving that
confession made by him under section 132(4) was as a
result of intimidation, duress and coercion or that same
was made as a result of mistaken belief of law or facts.
In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the
following decisions may kindly be considered with regard
to addition made u/s 68 of I.T.Act:
1. PCIT Vs NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com
Enclosed)
48 (SC) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Supreme Court reverse order of lower
Authorities holding that where there was failure of
assessee to establish credit worthiness of investor
companies, Assessing Officer was justified in passing
assessment order making additions under section 68 for
share capital / premium received by assessee company.
Merely because assessee company had filed all primary
evidence, it could not be said that onus on assessee to
establish credit worthiness of investor companies stood
discharged.
9 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
2. PCIT Vs NDR PPROMOTERS (2019-
ROMOTERS PVT LTD (2019 -TIOL-172
TIOL-172-HC-DEL
-HC- -
DEL-
IT)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that a case involving
make-believe paper work to camouflage the bogus nature
of the transactions is to be treated as unexplained credit
u/s 68.
3. ITO Vs Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.4778/Del/2013)
where Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that where investor of share
application money had nominal income and cheques had
been received just before issue of cheques for share
application money, creditworthiness was not proved and
addition u/s 68 was sustained.
4. Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 189
(Allahabad) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that additions u/s
68 warrant being sustained where the identities &
creditworthiness of investors in the assessee company are
not established by the assessee & are also proved
incorrect by the Department's Assessee Information
System. In such circumstances, assessee cannot resist the
additions on grounds that it did not have opportunity to
cross-examine relevant witnesses. An assessee company
cannot hide behind the shell of a corporate entity to feign
ignorance regarding the identity of any person who invests
in its share capital.
2018-
Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 2018 TIOL-
-TIOL 274-
-274 SC-IT (Copy
-SC-
Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"We do not find any merit in this petition. The Special
Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed."
5. CIT Vs MAF Academy (P.) Ltd (361 ITR 258) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee,
a private limited company, sold its shares to unrelated
parties at a huge premium and thereupon within short
span of time those shares were purchased back even at a
loss, share transactions in question were to be regarded as
bogus and, thus, amount received from said transactions
was to be added to assesee's taxable income under section
68 It was held as follows:
10 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
53. In contrast to the above judgments, in the present
"53.
case, the Assessee is a private limited company and in the
factual matrix, we have held that the Assessee has not
been able to discharge the initial onus and has not been
able to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the share
applicants and the genuineness of the transaction. Though,
in our considered opinion, none of the above judgments,
referred to by the Assessee respondent, are applicable in
the facts of the present case and in view of the findings
recorded by us hereinabove.
54. In view of the above, we are of the view that the
Assessee has not discharged the onus satisfactorily and
the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified
and sustainable."
6. CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt Ltd [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Del)
(Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court accepted that since the
assessee was unable to produce the directors and the
principal officers of the six shareholder companies and also
that as per the information and details collected by the
Assessing Officer from the concerned bank, the Assessing
Officer had observed that there were genuine concerns
about identity, creditworthiness of shareholders as well as
genuineness of the transactions.
"20. Now, when we go to the order of the Tribunal in the
present case, we notice that the Tribunal has merely
reproduced the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) and upheld the deletion of the addition. In fact,
they substantially relied upon and quoted the decision of
its co-ordinate Bench in the case of MAF Academy P. Ltd., a
decision which has been overturned by the Delhi High
Court, vide its judgment in CIT v. MAF Academy P. Ltd.
[2014] 206 DLT 277 ; [2014] 361 ITR 258 (Delhi)). In the
impugned order it is accepted that the assessee was
unable to produce directors and principal officers of the six
shareholder companies and also the fact that as per the
information and details collected by the Assessing Officer
from the concerned bank, the Assessing Officer has
observed that there were genuine concerns about identity,
creditworthiness of shareholders as well as genuineness of
the transactions.
11 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we feel that the
matter requires an order of remit to the Tribunal for fresh
adjudication keeping in view the aforesaid case law."
18
Navodaya Castle Pvt Ltd Vs CIT ([2015] 56 taxmann.com 18
(SC)/[2015] 230 Taxman 268 (SC)) (Copy Enclosed)
SLP of assessee dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. Konark Structural Engineering (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2018] 96
taxmann.com 255 (SC) (Copy Enclosed)
where assessee-company received certain amount as
share capital from various shareholders, in view of fact that
summons to shareholders under section 131 could not be
served as addresses were not available, and, moreover,
those shareholders were first time assessees and were not
earning enough income to make deposits in question,
addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 was
to be confirmed; SLP dismissed.
Konark Structural Engineering (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2018] 90
taxmann.com 56 (Bombay) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that where
assessee-company received certain amount as share
capital from various shareholders, in view of fact that
summons served to shareholders under section 131 were
unserved with remark that addressees were not available,
and, moreover, those shareholders were first time
assessees and were not earning enough income to make
deposits in question, impugned addition made by AO under
sec. 68, was to be confirmed.
10 PCIT Vs Bikram Singh [2017] 85 taxmann.com 104
(Delhi)/[2017] 250 Taxman 273 (Delhi)/[2017] 399 ITR 407
(Delhi) (Copy Enclosed)
(Delhi)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that even if a
transaction of loan is made through cheque, it cannot be
presumed to be genuine in the absence of any agreement,
security and interest payment. Mere submission of PAN
Card of creditor does not establish the authenticity of a
huge loan transaction particularly when the ITR does not
inspire such confidence. Mere submission of ID proof and
the fact that the loan transactions were through the
banking channel, does not establish the genuineness of
transactions. Loan entries are generally masked to pump in
black money into banking channels and such practices
continue to plague Indian economy.
12 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
8. Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (2018-TIOL
(2018- -1983
TIOL- -HC-
1983-HC-
MUM-
MUM -IT) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that mere
production of PAN numbers & bank statements is sufficient
enough to discharge the burden on taxpayer to escape the
realms of Section 68.
9. J J Development Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (2018 -TIOL
(2018- -395
TIOL- -SC-
395-SC-IT) (Copy
Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the assessee
fails to provide a convincing explanation with regard to the
cash credit before the AO and the same was accepted by
the ITAT being a fact finding body, the same cannot be
disputed further. Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave
to Petition filed by the assessee.
10. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30
taxmann.com 292, 214 Taxman 429, 350 ITR 407, 256
CTR 34) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee
failed to prove identity and capacity of subscriber
companies to pay share application money, amount so
received was liable to be taxed under section 68. It was
held as follows:
"12. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has
gone on the basis of the documents submitted by the
assessee before the AO and has held that in the light of
those documents, it can be said that the assessee has
established the identity of the parties. It has further been
observed that the report of the investigation wing cannot
conclusively prove that the assessee's own monies were
brought back in the form of share application money. As
noted in the earlier paragraph, it is not the burden of the
AO to prove that connection. There has been no
examination by the Tribunal of the assessment
proceedings in any detail in order to demonstrate that the
assessee has discharged its onus to prove not only the
identity of the share applicants, but also their
creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions.
No attempt was made by the Tribunal to scratch the
surface and probe the documentary evidence in some
depth, in the light of the conduct of the assessee and other
surrounding circumstances in order to see whether the
assessee has discharged its onus under Section 68. With
13 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
respect, it appears to us that there has only been a
mechanical reference to the case-law on the subject
without any serious appraisal of the facts and
circumstances of the case.
13. We, therefore, answer the substantial question of law
framed by us in the negative, in favour of the revenue and
against the assessee. The appeal of the revenue is allowed
with no order as to costs."
11. CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd (18
taxmann.com 217, 206 Taxman 207, 342 ITR 169, 252 CTR
187) (Copy Enclosed)
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that amount received
by assessee from accommodation entry providers in garb
of share application money, was to be added to its taxable
income under section 68. It Was held as follows:
"41. In the case before us, not only did the material before
the Assessing Officer show the link between the entry
providers and the assessee-company, but the Assessing
Officer had also provided the statements of Mukesh Gupta
and Rajan Jassal to the assessee in compliance with the
rules of natural justice. Out of the 22 companies whose
names figured in the information given by them to the
investigation wing, 15 companies had provided the so-
called "share subscription monies" to the assessee. There
was thus specific involvement of the assessee-company in
the modus operandi followed by Mukesh Gupta and Rajan
Jassal. Thus, on crucial factual aspects the present case
stands on a completely different footing from the case of
Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. (supra).
42. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to
uphold the order of the Tribunal confirming the deletion of
the addition of Rs. 1,18,50,000 made under section 68 of
the Act as well as the consequential addition of Rs.
2,96,250. We accordingly answer the substantial questions
of law in the negative and in favour of the department. The
assessee shall pay costs which we assess at Rs. 30,000/-."
12. CIT Vs N R Portfolio Pvt Ltd [2014] 42 taxmann.com
339 (Delhi)/[2014] 222 Taxman 157 (Delhi)(MAG)/[2014]
264 CTR 258 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed)
14 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if AO doubts the
documents produced by assessee, the onus shifts on
assessee to further substantiate the facts or produce the
share applicant in proceeding. It was held as follows:
"30. What we perceive and regard as correct position of
law is that the court or tribunal should be convinced about
the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the
transaction. The onus to prove the three factum is on the
assessee as the facts are within the assessee's knowledge.
Mere production of incorporation details, PAN Nos. or the
fact that third persons or company had filed income tax
details in case of a private limited company may not be
sufficient when surrounding and attending facts predicate
a cover up. These facts indicate and reflect proper paper
work or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness,
identity are deeper and obtrusive. Companies no doubt are
artificial or juristic persons but they are soulless and are
dependent upon the individuals behind them who run and
manage the said companies. It is the persons behind the
company who take the decisions, controls and manage
them."
5. In the rejoinder, it is stated by the learned counsel that the
assessee is not retracting the statement given by Shri Shekhar Agarwal
under Section 132(4) that the group had unaccounted income which is
routed through the share capital. In fact, the income was earned in the
flagship company viz., M/s Surya Food and Agro Limited which had the
turnover of more than `500 crores a year. Therefore, the said
company filed the petition before the Settlement Commission by
disclosing its additional income. That in the appellant companies, it is
only the application of that income. That these facts have been duly
considered and accepted by the ITAT while granting stay to the
appellant companies in its order dated 1st March, 2019. He further
stated that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has
mentioned at several places that it is the undisclosed income of the
group which is invested in the form of bogus share capital. However,
at the end, while making the addition, he took a different stand than
what is stated in the whole body of the assessment order. He stated
15 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
that when the income has been taxed, its application cannot be taxed
again otherwise it would amount to double taxation of income.
6. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides
and perused the material placed before us. The limited question
before us is whether the credit in the form of share capital in the
companies under appeal before us can be considered to be application
of undisclosed income of M/s Surya Food and Agro Limited who have
declared such income before the Settlement Commission. Let us first
see the stand of the Revenue i.e., the Assessing Officer. At the time of
hearing before us, both the parties have agreed that the facts in all the
above three appeals are identical and in fact, the assessment orders
are also more or less identically worded. They have referred to only
one assessment order i.e., assessment order in the case of M/s Surya
Processed Food Pvt.Ltd. for assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, we
will also refer herein below the said assessment order.
7. In paragraph 1 of the order, the Assessing Officer has mentioned
as under :-
"Search and seizure proceedings under section 132 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter `the Act') were
conducted in the case of Priya Gold Group and its group
concerns and residential/factory premises of partners,
directors and proprietors of the group on 16.12.2014. The
case of the assessee was also covered in operation u/s 132
of the Income Tax Act, 1961."
8. Paragraph 2.2 of the order reads as under :-
"2.2 Sh. Shekhar Agarwal, one of the directors in the
associated group companies, in his statement recorded on
oath u/s 132(4) on 17.12.2014 has accepted that the
undisclosed income on account of bogus share capital
16 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
money will be surrendered in the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-
15, but the same has not been surrendered by the
assessee company in its return u/s 153A of the Act. In
reply to ques. no.25, Sh. Shekhar Agarwal stated that :
I accept the fact that our group has routed its unaccounted
income earned through undisclosed sources amounting to
`31 crore in F.Y. 2012-13 and `15.91 crore in F.Y. 2014-15
in its companies M/s Surya Processed Food Pvt.Ltd. and M/s
Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited through Kolkata
based companies namely and M/s Subhshree Investment
Management Private Limited, M/s Surya Vincom Private
Limited and M/s Surya Vanijya Private Limited, M/s Garima
Commerce Private Limited, M/s Lokenath Investments
Consultants Private Limited respectively by way of share
capital/share premium."
8.1 From the above, it is evident that the Assessing Officer himself
has considered the Priya Gold group as one group and the assessee
company being part of the same group. He relied upon the statement
of Shri Shekhar Agarwal who is Director in the associated group
companies. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that Shri
Shekhar Agarwal is the Director in M/s Surya Food and Agro Limited
i.e., the flagship company. In the statement, Shri Shekhar Agarwal
accepted the fact that the group has routed its unaccounted income in
the form of share capital in its companies M/s Surya Processed Food
Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited.
9. The Assessing Officer has again relied upon the above statement
of Shri Shekhar Agarwal. Paragraph 4.11 of the order of the
assessment order reads as under :-
"4.11 The statement on oath dated 16.12.14 of Shri
Shekhar Agrawal, who was handling all the investment
related issues of the Priyagold group of companies, was
also recorded at the residence and the statement
substantiates the fact that all the financial and investment
related decisions were taken by Shri Shekhar Agarwal and
17 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
he is the key person handling investments and fund
requirement in main companies of the group. Further
questioning of Shri Shekhar Agarwal on the issue of
accommodation entries taken by the Priyagold Group took
place at the head office of the Priyagold Group."
9.1 Thus, the Assessing Officer himself has recorded the finding that
Shri Shekhar Agarwal was handling all the investment related issues of
Priya Gold group of companies. It is further noted that he is the key
person handling investments and funds requirements in the main
companies of the group.
10. In paragraph 4.13, again the Assessing Officer has mentioned
"His statement reflects the fact that though Shri Shekhar Agarwal
inter-alia looked after the decisions related to finance and general
policy including decisions regarding assessment of funds requirement
by the group companies, he was unable to furnish any reply to the
questions regarding creditworthiness of investor companies, details of
meetings with investor companies, due diligence followed in issuance
of shares by the group, date of allotment of shares, face value and
premium charged". Thus, the Assessing Officer admitted that Shri
Shekhar Agarwal looked after the decisions relating to finance and
general policy including the decision regarding funds requirement of
the group companies.
11. At page 30 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer, while
relying upon the statement of Shri Shekhar Agarwal, has reproduced
his statement. Question No.26 and answer thereto read as under :-
"Q.26 Since you have accepted the fact that your
group has routed its unaccounted income earned through
undisclosed sources amounting to `31 crore in F.Y. 2012-
13 and `15.91 crore in F.Y. 2013-14 in its companies M/s
Surya Processed Food Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Surya Agrotech
18 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
Infrastructure Limited through Kolkata based companies by
way of share capital/share premium, please explain the
modus operandi adopted by your group to route this
unaccounted money.
Ans. I wish to state that our group had unaccounted
funds available with it and wanted to introduce these funds
into the books of accounts of our main companies. For this
purpose I came in contact with Sh. Sudhir Satnaliwala, who
assured the arrangement of bogus companies registered in
Kolkata to introduce our unaccounted funds. The
unaccounted funds were handed over in cash to one of the
confidants of Sh. Sudhir Satnaliwala. Accordingly Sh.
Sudhir Satnaliwala introduced these unaccounted funds
into the books of our main companies namely M/s Surya
Processed Food Pvt.Ltd. & M/s Surya Processed Food
Pvt.Ltd. in the form of share capital/share premium through
a layer of Kolkata based companies. However I am not
aware about the exact modus operandi followed by Sh.
Sudhir Satnaliwala to arrange these transactions."
11.1 From the above, it is evident that Shri Shekhar Agarwal
repeatedly mentioned that it is the unaccounted income of the group
which is routed through the share capital in M/s Surya Processed Food
Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited i.e., the
companies in appeal before us.
11.2 The above statement of Shri Shekhar Agarwal has been relied
upon by the Assessing Officer time and again. At page 31 of the
assessment order, after considering the statement of Shri Shekhar
Agarwal, the Assessing Officer concluded as below :-
"The above admission of Shri Shekhar Agarwal established
beyond doubt that Priyagold group had unaccounted funds
which were introduced into main companies of the group
by routing of these funds through layers of bogus (jama
kharchi) accommodation providing companies. This
submission was reconfirmed by Mr. Shekhar Agarwal in his
statement recorded during post-search proceedings on
29.01.15."
19 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
11.3 Thus, the Assessing Officer himself has concluded that Priya Gold
group had undisclosed funds which were introduced into main
companies of the group by routing of these funds through layers of
bogus accommodation entries.
12. Again at page 38, the Assessing Officer, in paragraph 4.24,
recorded the following finding :-
"All the above statements further establish the fact that all
these companies based in Kolkata purportedly investing in
Priyagold Group are nothing but paper companies and all
the investments from them in Priyagold group concerns in
the form of share capital/share premium are nothing but
accommodation entries, which have been obtained by
Priyagold group in its books by routing its own
unaccounted money."
13. In paragraph 4.26, the Assessing Officer concluded as under :-
"It is proved beyond any iota of doubt that this investment
of over Rs.46.91 crores in the form of share
capital/premium in various companies of Priyagold Group is
nothing but an accommodation entry which has been
obtained by routing its own unaccounted money in its
books and is liable to be added in the hands of assessee
group companies u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961."
13.1 Thus, the Assessing Officer has concluded that the investment of
`46.91 crores in the form of share capital/premium in various
companies of Priyagold Group is nothing but an accommodation entry
and it is liable to be added in the hands of the assessee group
companies. As per Assessing Officer himself, the share capital is liable
to be assessed in the hands of the assessee group companies. From
the above observation of the assessment order, it is absolutely clear
that the stand of the Revenue was that the Priya Gold group had
20 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
undisclosed income which is routed in the form of share capital by
obtaining accommodation entries from Kolkata based entry provider
companies and the said share capital including premium is liable to be
taxed in the hands of the assessee group companies.
14. In the context of this finding of the Assessing Officer, let us
examine the application before the Settlement Commission and the
order of the Settlement Commission in the case of M/s Surya Food and
Agro Limited, which is the flagship company of the assessee group.
The copy of the application before the Settlement Commission along
with the annexures are produced in the paper book from page 36
onwards. The application is signed by Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Director
of the said company. At page 4 of the application, the assessee has
given the names of the group companies which read as under :-
S.No. Name of the company
1. M/s Surya Food & Agro Ltd.
2. M/s Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd.
3. M/s Surya Processed Food Pvt.Ltd.
4. M/s Surya Fresh Foods Ltd.
5. M/s Surya Shopping Arcade Pvt.Ltd.
6. M/s Surya Biscuit Industries (Proprietorship
concern)
7. M/s Surya Healthcare Industries (Prop. Concern)
8. M/s Garima Commerce Pvt.Ltd.
9. M/s Lokenath Investment Consultants Pvt.Ltd.
10. M/s Surya Vincom Pvt.Ltd. (formerly known as
M/s Neelkanth Vincom Pvt.Ltd.)
11. M/s Subhshree Investment Management Pvt.Ltd.
12. M/s Surya Vanijya Pvt.Ltd.
21 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
(formerly known as M/s Labhdhan Mercantile
Pvt.Ltd.)
15. From the above, it is evident that it includes both the companies
under appeal before us. In paragraph 4 Annexure-A of the application,
there is full and true statement of facts and the manner in which the
income has been derived. The relevant portion thereof is reproduced
below:-
"IV. FULL & TRUE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MANNER IN
WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED.
1. The applicant company is in the trade of
manufacturing and sale of biscuits.
2. The applicant company is managed by Agarwal
family called Agarwal Group for short. The head-man of
family is Sh. Ballabh Prasad Agarwala. The business
operations and executive functions of business of the
applicant company are conducted by his youngest son Sh.
Shekhar Agarwal.
3. ..................
4. ..................
5. ..................
6. ..................
7. ..................
8. ..................
9. ..................
10. ..................
11. ..................
12. The applicant introduced a part of the profit made in
the hedging transaction kept outside books, in the books of
the group concerns in the form of entries taken as Share
capital in the group concerns. Thus the profit made
outside books by the applicant was utilized by it for making
investments in the share capital of other group concerns.
13. The following are the amounts introduced in the
shape of share capital of the group entities obtained from
entry operators:-
22 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
S.No. Name of Entity in which entry Amount Assessment Year
has obtained
1. Surya Processed Food (P) Ltd. 31,00,50,000 2013-14
2. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure 2,60,00,000 2013-14
Ltd.
3. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure 13,31,50,000 2014-15
Ltd.
Total 46,92,00,000
Entries were introduced in the above companies by
allotting shares to the bogus shareholders as per list
placed in Annexure `C'. It is submitted that the entire
bogus share capital was obtained by ploughing back
money earned in hedging transactions in cash kept outside
books.
14. Below is a table showing the turn over and the gross
profit earned by the applicant as per books:-
Asstt. Year Turn Over Gross Profit G.P. Rate
2009-10 3,80,95,14,651 68,54,42,867 17.99
2010-11 4,36,88,88,049 58,31,74,857 13.35
2011-12 4,73,68,11,191 87,91,34,327 18.56
2012-13 5,41,17,27,672 96,71,90,982 17.92
2013-14 6,39,80,48,593 1,11,61,57,254 17.45
2014-15 6,77,30,78,789 1,26,35,04,456 18.65
2015-16 7,18,85,42,615 1,36,45,98,055 18.98
A reference to the above chart would show that there is a
variation in the G.P. rate over the years. It shows the
volatility in the trade because of the prices of raw material,
which are end product of agricultural sector and thus their
prices are fluctuating depending on the season and
weather. The applicant in order to save itself from
fluctuations hedged the prices of raw material to maintain
a reasonable gross profit at 19%.
The additional income by taking the gross profit at 19% will
be as follows:-
23 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
Asstt. Turnover (Rs.) G.P. @ 19% Gross profit as Additional
Year Amount (Rs.) per books (Rs.) Income
2009-10 3,80,95,14,651 72,38,07,784 68,54,42,867 3,83,64,917
2010-11 4,36,88,88,049 83,00,88,729 58,31,74,857 24,69,13,872
2011-12 4,73,68,11,191 89,99,94,126 87,91,34,327 2,08,59,799
2012-13 5,41,17,27,672 1,02,82,28,258 96,71,90,982 6,10,57,276
2013-14 6,39,80,48,593 1,21,56,29,233 1,11,61,57,254 9,94,71,979
2014-15 6,77,30,78,789 1,28,68,84,970 1,26,35,04,456 2,33,80,514
2015-16 7,18,85,42,615 1,36,58,23,097 1,36,45,98,055 12,25,042
Total 49,12,73,399
From the above it is seen that the additional income
mentioned above covers the investment made by the
applicant company in the shares of:-
a) Surya Processed Food Pvt.Ltd.
b) Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd.
15. It would be seen that the additional income offered
by the applicant earned from the hedging of raw material
covers the undisclosed assets/application of funds found
during the course of search and there is no other
undisclosed asset found or application of funds by the
group over and above the income offered. Thus the
income offered by the applicant is full and true."
16. In Annexure-3 of the application, M/s Surya Food & Agro
Limited has given the complete details of bogus share capital
introduced in the group companies. The same read as under :-
Surya Food & Agro Ltd.
List of bogus capital introduced by the applicant in group companies
Company name : Surya Processed Food Private Limited
Details of bogus shareholders
S.No. Particulars No. of Per Amount Assessment
Shares share Years
24 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
value
1 M/s Subhshree 42,22,973 37 1562,50,000 2013-14
Investment
Management
Pvt.Ltd.
2 M/s Surya Vincom 41,56,757 37 1538,00,000 2013-14
Pvt.Ltd.
Total 83,79,730 3100,50,000
Company Name : Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd.
Details of Bogus Shareholders
S.No. Particulars No. of Per Amount Assessment
Shares share Years
value
1 M/s Surya Vanijya 26,00,000 10 260,00,000 2013-14
Pvt.Ltd.
2 M/s Garima 3,60,000 10 36,00,000 2014-15
Commerce Pvt.Ltd.
3 M/s Surya Vanijya 126,30,000 10 1263,00,000 2014-15
Pvt.Ltd.
4 M/s Lokenath 3,25,000 10 32,50,000 2014-15
Investment
Consultants Pvt.Ltd.
Total 159,15,000 1591,50,000
17. The above application is admitted by the Settlement Commission
and the final order was passed on 8th June, 2018. The computation of
income by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) was as
under :-
Computation of Income u/s 245D(4)
Name of Asstt. Total Income Income Income Total income
the Year as per return disclosed settled u/s determined u/s
applicant (in Rs.) u/s 245C(1) 245D(4) (in 245D(4)
(in Rs.) Rs.) (in Rs.)
1 2 3 (1 + 3)
2009-10 69,711,904 38,364,917 38,364,917 10,80,76,821
2010-11 73,607,180 246,913,872 246,913,872 32,05,21,052
2011-12 86,738,060 20,859,799 20,859,799 10,75,97,859
M/s Surya 2012-13 78,470,380 61,057,276 61,057,276 13,95,27,656
25 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
Food & 2013-14 11,442,840 99,471,979 99,471,979 21,49,14,819
Agro Ltd. 2014-15 153,641,060 23,380,514 23,380,514 17,70,21,574
2015-16 501,459,130 1,225,042 6,76,76,042 56,91,35,172
Total 1,079,070,554 491,273,399 55,77,24,399 1,63,67,94,953
18. Thus, as against the income of `49.12 crores disclosed before the
Settlement Commission, the additional income finally settled was
`55.77 crores. With regard to application of income in the form of
share capital in M/s Surya Processed Food Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Surya
Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd., the Settlement Commission declined to
give any finding with the following order :-
"8.5.3 Another issue in this case is that the applicant
is claiming that its Additional income has been invested in
two other group companies to the tune of
Rs.46,92,00,000/-. However, those two companies are not
before the commission and hence this issue cannot be
adjudicated by us."
19. Thus, the Settlement Commission declined to give any finding
with regard to the application of additional income disclosed before the
Settlement Commission. We find that the ITAT in assessee's own case,
while considering the stay petitions by these two companies which are
under appeal before us, in its order in Stay Application No.205 to
207/Del/2019, vide order dated 1st March, 2019, gave the following
finding :-
"We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the
order of the settlement commission dated 8/6/2018. It is
apparent that the disclosure has been made by the
company who has earned the undisclosed income and
routed in books through the petitioner companies as
unaccounted share capital. The application of the income
is taxed in the hands of the petitioner companies
apparently it seems and sources of income is taxed in the
26 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
hands of Surya Food and Agro Ltd. Therefore prima facie
the case of the assessee shows that there is a double
addition, once the source of income and secondly the
application of income. Therefore according to us the
balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee."
20. Learned DR has contended that the conclusion drawn by the ITAT
in the order of stay is a wrong conclusion and should not be relied
upon while deciding the appeals on merits. However, after considering
the submissions of both the sides and the facts of the case and going
through the orders of the lower authorities as well as Settlement
Commission, we entirely agree with the above finding of the ITAT given
in the stay petitions. From the assessment order, the relevant portion
of which has already been reproduced above in this order, it is clear
that the stand of the Assessing Officer throughout was that there was
undisclosed income of the Surya Group which is routed in the form of
share capital in the group companies by obtaining the accommodation
entries from Kolkata based entry provider companies. Such share
capital/share premium is liable to be added in the hands of the group
companies. The flagship company of the group viz., M/s Surya Food
and Agro Limited has already offered the additional income to the tune
of `49.12 crores before the Settlement Commission, which the
Settlement Commission has enhanced to `55.77 crores. The order of
the Settlement Commission is accepted by both the parties and thus
has become final. Before the Settlement Commission, the assessee
has repeatedly stated, which we have already mentioned above while
reproducing the relevant portion of the application before the
Settlement Commission, that the undisclosed income which is being
offered before the Settlement Commission has been applied by way of
introduction in the shape of share capital to group entities viz., M/s
Surya Processed Food Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Surya Agrotech Infrastructure
Limited. In paragraph 15 of the application before the Settlement
27 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
Commission, M/s Surya Food & Agro Limited has made it clear that
"there is no other undisclosed asset found or application of funds by
the group". This statement made before the Settlement Commission
has neither been found to be incorrect nor before us it has been shown
that M/s Surya Food and Agro Limited has applied the undisclosed
income offered before the Settlement Commission for acquisition of
any other asset. In view of the above, we entirely agree with order of
the ITAT passed in stay petition wherein the ITAT held that "the
disclosure has been made by the company who has earned the
undisclosed income and routed in books through the petitioner
companies as unaccounted share capital. The application of the
income is taxed in the hands of the petitioner companies apparently it
seems and sources of income is taxed in the hands of Surya Food and
Agro Ltd. Therefore prima facie the case of the assessee shows that
there is double taxation, once the source of income and secondly the
application of income". We entirely agree with the above finding of the
ITAT in the order passed in the stay petition filed by M/s Surya
Processed Food Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd. In
view of the above, since the income has already been taxed in the
hands of M/s Surya Food and Agro Limited, the application of the said
income in the form of share capital in M/s Surya Processed Food
Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd. i.e., the appellants
before us, cannot be taxed again. Accordingly, we delete the addition
for unexplained share capital and allow ground No.1 in all the appeals.
21. With regard to ground No.2, both the parties admitted that this
ground would be consequential to the decision in ground No.1. The
Assessing Officer, apart from the addition on share capital, has also
made further addition of alleged expenditure being commission for
acquiring the accommodation entries in the form of share capital. Both
the parties have agreed that if it is accepted that the investment in the
28 ITA Nos.1156 to 1158/Del/2019
share capital was out of the undisclosed income of M/s Surya Food &
Agro Limited, which is disclosed before the Settlement Commission,
the same finding would be squarely applicable with regard to
commission for arranging such accommodation entries. In view of the
finding with regard to ground No.1, we hold that the addition for
alleged expenditure on arranging the accommodation entries in the
form of share capital is also made from the undisclosed income offered
and settled by M/s Surya Food & Agro Limited before the Settlement
Commission. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the assessee's appeals is
allowed.
22. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed.
Decision pronounced in the open Court on 07.05.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
KAMBLE)
(SUCHITRA KAMBLE) AGRAWAL)
(G.D. AGRAWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
VK.
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant : M/s Surya Processed Food Pvt.Ltd. and
M/s Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited,
2nd Floor, 19, Local Shopping Complex,
Near Pushpa Bhawan, Madangir,
New Delhi 110 062.
2. Respondent : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-8, New Delhi.
Central Circle-
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT
Assistant Registrar
|