Latest Expert Exchange Queries
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) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd
From the Courts »
 Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 Shreemati Devi vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court)
 Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs

Jagrati Traders Pvt. Ltd., A-231, 2nd Floor, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(1), New Delhi.
August, 20th 2015
               DELHI BENCH "D" NEW DELHI

                         ITA no. 3966/Del/2010
                         Asstt. Yr: 2006-07

Jagrati Traders Pvt. Ltd.,            Vs.   Income-tax Officer,
A-231, 2nd Floor, Derawal Nagar,            Ward 4(1), New Delhi.


( Appellant )                               (Respondent)

      Appellant by       :      Shri K.R. Manjani Adv.
      Respondent by      :      Shri Gaurav Dudeja Sr. DR

                   Date of hearing    :     26/06/2015.
                   Date of order      :     19/08/2015.



      This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the CIT(A)-VII, New
Delhi's order dated 6-5-2010 in appeal no. 161/08-09, relating to asstt. Year 2006-
07. Following grounds are raised:
      "1. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case ,
      the learned CIT(Appeals) has not considered the facts of the
      case and legal Judgments of Jurisdictional Courts, ITAT and
      Supreme Court and other different courts of law as cited in the
      appeal while deciding the matter Of addition of income on
      estimation/guess work basis       merely on surmises and

      2.    That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the
      learned CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the
      finding of the AO regarding the Nature of business of the
      assessee without any cogent evidences.
      3.     That learned CIT(A) has erred on the fact and on law and
      in circumstances of the case wherein he has not considered the
      submissions of the assessee filed during the course of
      proceedings .
      4.     That the learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and on law
      wherein upholding the claim of the AO without going into the
      fact that the) order of AO had been passed without confronting
      any material to the assessee which itself is against the Principle
      of Natural Justice.
      5.     That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the
      case wherein without any substance in his logic for estimating
      the income 'of the assessee he proceeded to estimate merely on
      conjecture and surmises.
      6.     That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the
      case wherein he did not find or identified any single transaction
      effectively carried out by the assessee and without proving the
      same to be as sham transaction wherein the AO and CIT(A)
      harbored a supernatural belief that in transferring the funds on
      account of sale and purchase the assessee must be earning some
      sort of commission income which is illegal and baseless merely
      on presumption.
7. That the appellant craves the indulgence of this Hon'ble appellant authority to amend any/all grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 2. Brief facts of the cases are that in the relevant assessment year the assessee company as engaged in the purchase and sale of shares (trading) as well as investment in shares besides finance and advances. The assessee had filed its return of income, declaring loss of Rs. 1007/-. The AO noticed that the assessee company had dealt in the following shares: i. BVanzo Papers, 3 ii. Explore Computers; iii. Bolt Synthetics; iv. Datta Finance & Trading; v. Deplomat International vi. Elent Steels vii. Makesr Agencies viii. Zig Zag Exports ix. S.S.A. Credits, x. Rose Alloys, xi. Commitment Financial Services etc. 2.1. He observed that none of these alleged companies had mentioned the words "Ltd." or "Pvt. Ltd.". He observed that all these were, in any case, unlisted companies and, therefore, no person would invest in ordinary course and deal with these companies. He further noted that in all the cases the purchases as well as sales had been made @ 10/- per share. Being doubtful about the credence of purchase and sales, he issued notices u/s 133(6) to the following concerns with which the assessee claimed to have business transactions: (i) M/s Joy Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/s Glory Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (iii) M/s A.K. Kumar & Company (iv) M/s Jumbo Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (v) M/s Thunder Exports Pvt. Ltd. (vi) M/s Guard Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2.2. The AO has noted that no response was received from M/s Joy Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and /s Glory Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and in case of other four, the notices issued u/s 133(6) returned unserved. After considering all these aspects, the AO concluded that assessee was an entry operator, inter alia, observing as under: 4 "The actual position is that the assessee M/s Jagrati Traders Pvt. Ltd. is a part of the Vikas Holding Pvt. Ltd. group being run by Ajay Kumar and Pradeep Kumar and these two persons are running more than 30 bank accounts of various concerns including the assessee company. The entire group has been subject of certain inquiries and investigation by the investigation Wing wherein it has been found that they are not carrying on any actual business. They have been found to be engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries. The person/ party who provides such entry is known as Entry Operator and the person/ party taking such entry is called beneficiary." earning through commission. He, accordingly, made addition of Rs. 5,33,370/-, inter alia, observing as under: "The total credits in the bank accounts of the assessee company (as per the bank book for Bank of India account maintained by the assessee) less the opening balance for the relevant period works out to Rs. 2,13,34,810/- (2,16,70,532- 3,35,722). Taking the average of the commission rates as 2.5%, a sum of Rs. 5,33,370/- (i.e. 2.5% of Rs. 2,13,34,810/-) is also added to the income of the assessee as the commission paid to the entry operators. The total commission income of the assessee from this activity of giving `adjustment entries' thus works out to Rs. 5,33,370/-." 2.3. Accordingly, the total income was determined at Rs. 5,32,363/-. 2.4. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed following documents: i) Detail of sale of shares to various parties during the year under consideration. ii) Copy of the statement for the year under consideration relating to the bank account of the appellant with Bank of India, Ansari Road, Delhi; and 5 iii) Confirmation of accounts from the parties to whom the shares have been claimed to have been sold during the year under consideration." 2.5. The AO submitted its remand report, which has been reproduced in para 5.1 of the CIT(A)'s order. The said remand report was provide to assessee. The assessee's rejoinder has been reproduced in para 5.2 of CIT(A)'s order. 2.6. After considering the reply, the ld. CIT(A) determined the commission/ brokerage @ 1.5% on the total bank entries of Rs. 2,13,34,810/-, which came to Rs. 3,20,022/-. 3. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the detailed reply filed by the assessee. He prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of AO for de novo consideration. 4. Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the observations made by the AO in the remand report were replied by assessee. However, they have not been considered by ld. CIT(A). We have examined the case of M/s Joy Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein AO in the remand report, inter alia, observed that, "a perusal of the details filed revealed that the bank statement for only a part of the year was filed and not the statement for the full year as specifically asked for in the summons issued". 5.1. In the reply filed by assessee, the assessee has categorically stated that, "AO never requisite the parties to whom he summoned to submit the copies of the bank statement for full year. He had merely asked the parties to 6 show him the bank statement for financial year 2005-06, which had been duly perused by him during the course of attendance of the summoned parties wherein he asked from the party the relevant part of the copy of the bank statement wherein transaction had taken place with the assessee. He also perused the books of account and bills and vouchers which had been produced before him, but the AO had observed contrary to the same". These submissions, contradicting the stand of AO, have not been considered by ld. CIT(A). 5.2. Similar is the position in regard to other parties which we do not propose to go into detail. Considering the contradictions in the finding regarding production of evidence before AO, we consider it in the interest of justice that the order passed by ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of AO for de novo consideration after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct accordingly. 6. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in open court on 19/08/2015.. Sd/- Sd/- (H.S. SIDHU) (S.V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19/08/2015. *MP* Copy of order to: 1. Assessee 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, New Delhi. 7 -+ Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on -07.2015 PS 2. Draft placed before author .07.2015 PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second JM/AM member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Content Management System development CMS development Content Management Solutions CMS Solutions Content Management Services CMS Services CMS Software

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