ATUL KUMAR BANSAL,DELHI V. ACIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-13,NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 1641/DEL/2022

AI Insights

This case involves Sh. Atul Kumar Bansal, an entry operator, who was subjected to a search by the Income Tax Department in 2006. Following the search, an assessment was made under section 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which determined his income at Rs.1,96,12,820. The assessee contested this assessment, leading to a series of appeals and re-assessments. The primary issues in the current appeal were the taxability of Rs.61,49,670, the chargeability of interest under section 234B, and the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal's decision emphasized the lack of new material or compliance by the assessee to warrant a change in the assessment or the penalties imposed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474951 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KAUSHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V. K. SABHARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Accommodation entries
• Section: 271(1)(c); 153A; 69A; 234B

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1641/Del/2022, A.Y. 2004-05 Sh. Atul Kumar Bansal, 911, Gali Inderwali, Kucha Patti Ram, Sita Ram Bazar, New Delhi PAN: AKBPB8917C Vs . Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, ARA Blduing, Jhandewala New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Advocate Sh. Aditya Roy, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/03/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2004-05 is directed against the order dated 30.06.2022 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’]. 2. Vide 18 grounds, the appellant assessee has raised following issues: i. Taxability of Rs.61,49,670/-. ITA No.1641/Del/2022 Atul Kumar Bansal 2 ii. Chargeability of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). iii. Initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, an entry operator, was searched by the Income Tax Department in 2006. The consequential search assessment was concluded under section 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act at income of Rs.1,96,12,820/-. The assessee preferred appeal against the original order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act, which was partly allowed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the income of Rs.18,82,480/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,76,500/-. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal, who vide its order dated 28.08.2009 restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) to complete the assessment in direction with its order. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment on 31.12.2010 at income of Rs.44,85,400/-. The assessment order dated 31.12.2010 was appealed before the CIT(A) and later on before the ITAT by the assessee. The ITAT vide its order dated 07.02.2018 in ITA No. 2290/Del/2018 held as under: “11. We have carefully considered the rival contention and orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly the assessee is an entry operator who used to operate many companies bank account by depositing cash in those bank accounts and issuing cheques for accommodation entry to the various beneficiaries. The income of ITA No.1641/Del/2022 Atul Kumar Bansal 3 the assessee out of that business is also assessed to tax. Such income taxed in the hands of the assessee has not been challenged by the assessee before us. Therefore, it is established fact that assessee is an entry operator who uses many concerns for issuing cheques to the various beneficiaries. According to the revised grounds the assessee is contesting that appellant is not the beneficial owner of the concerns namely Krishna machine tools and Navneet trading Co from whom a sum of Rs.4137266/- was seized during the course of search in the bank account. The contention of the assessee deserves to be rejected because of the simple reason that in the statement of the assessee in question No. 12 assessee was asked to explain about the Krishna machine tools which was having the same address. The assessee explained that M/s Krishna machine tools was provided 1 address and therefore the assessee has provided the same address belongs to the assessee's address in New Delhi. The assessee was further the details of the residential address of the proprietor of that form which assessee failed to explain however the mobile number was also given. Similarly, is the detail of M/s Navneet trading Co. As per the chart submitted by the assessee the amount of Rs.3664912/- was belonging to M/s Krishna machine tools in CA 110 762 OBC account and Rs.472354/ of Navneet Trading co in CA 110240 OBC. It is the claim of the assessee that these 2 accounts are not been used by the assessee for the purpose of providing accommodation entries. In view of this we set aside this issue to the file of the Ld. assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to satisfy the Ld. assessing officer that assessee is not using the above concerns for the purpose of providing accommodation entries by these 2 parties. Assessee is also further directed to produce before the assessing officer the real owners of these two accounts, as assessee knows them, and whether such bank account balances shown in the regular books of account or not of those concerns. The Ld. AO shall also examine the details so produced and thereafter if he is satisfied on examination of such bank accounts, owners of these 2 concerns and also the nature of operations which justifies the existence of such a balance ITA No.1641/Del/2022 Atul Kumar Bansal 4 commensurate in with their return of income with the books of accounts of those concerns then such addition is required to be deleted. 12. Further with respect to the commission income if the amount of bank balances of Varun Trade Center and Sh. Hanuman sales Corporation which are part of bank balances seized also considered for working out the commission income then such balances should be excluded as naturally the assessee has not earned any commission income on such outstanding balances lying in the bank account of these 2 concerns. Therefore, the assessee is directed to show the assessing officer that on such balances also the commission income has been computed. The Ld. assessing officer may verify the same and if it is found to his satisfaction that such sum has also been included for working out turnover, then it should be excluded. Therefore, accordingly the issue of working out of the turnover is also set aside to the file of the Ld. assessing officer. 13. Consequently the ground No. 1-3 as per the revised grounds raised by the assessee is set aside to the file of the Ld. assessing officer for reworking the addition under section 69A of the income tax act. And similarly the ground No. 4 is also set aside to the file of the Ld. assessing officer for reworking the commission income of the assessee excluding the amount of balance outstanding in bank account of 2 concerns on which the commission Income naturally has not been earned.” [Emphasis is supplied by us.] 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel reiterate the above admitted facts. This case is third time before the Tribunal. However, on specific query by us, the Ld. Counsel failed to demonstrate that how the appellant assessee has ensured specific compliance before the AO in pursuance ITA No.1641/Del/2022 Atul Kumar Bansal 5 of this Tribunal directions (as highlighted above) vide its order dated 07.02.2018 in ITA No. 2290/Del/2018. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal’s direction as highlighted above is very specific and the same cannot be met with arguments. On our specific query, the Ld. Counsel showed his inability to ensure compliance of the direction even before us. 5. The Ld. CIT(DR), placing emphasis on the finding of lower authorities, prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 6. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on record. We find merit in the arguments of the Ld. CIT-DR. The appellant assessee/Ld. Counsel has not brought any material on the record to controvert the finding of lower authorities. Further, the appellant assessee is also not able to explain the seized cash, etc. Thus, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of lower authorities. Accordingly, the assessment at income of Rs.61,49,670/- is upheld. Grounds concerning this issue thus stand dismissed. 7. As far as the issues relating to chargeability of interest under section 234B of the Act and initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are concerned, these are either consequential or premature. These do not require specific adjudication. Therefore, these grounds ITA No.1641/Del/2022 Atul Kumar Bansal 6 stand dismissed. Consequentially, this appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed as above. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 26th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 26/03/2025 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)-ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "