DCIT, CC-18, DELHI V. MS TIME COMPUTECH SERVICES LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 3024/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against M/s Time Computech Services Ltd concerning the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. The appeals were based on additions made by the Assessing Officer following a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which revealed accommodation entries received by the assessee through an entry operator. The assessee had declared the income from these entries and paid the due tax, which was also acknowledged by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case involving the director of M/s Laxmi Remote [India] Pvt Ltd, found no grounds for the Revenue's appeal, as the matter had been settled and the income duly taxed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312702 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT Vs. Parkash Sachdeva, Vijay Kumar Sachdeva, Individual, a director of M/s Laxmi Remote [India] Pvt Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMER SINGH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S.P. GOGIA
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3024/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2013-14] ITA No. 3025/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2015-16] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/s Time Computech Services Ltd Central Circle – 18 Block No. 18, House No. 12 Delhi Geeta Colony, Delhi PAN: AAACT 2715 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.P. Gogia, Adv Department By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- Both the above captioned appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-27, Delhi dated 17.08.2023 for A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16. 2 ITA No. 3024 & 3025/DEL/2023 [A.Ys 2013-14 & 2015-16] Time Computech Services 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is a sister concern of M/s Laxmi Remote (India) Pvt. Ltd which is engaged in manufacturing remote controls and set top boxes for various companies. A search u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was conducted on 21.08.2017 in the case of Laxmi Remote Group including the assessee-company. The search was conducted on the group on account of accommodation entries received by them through entry operator/facilitator like Aashish Begwani & Associates, mainly in the form of unsecured loan over the period from F.Y. 2012-13 to F.Y. 2016-17. 3. M/s Laxmi Remote [India] Pvt Ltd filed petition before the Settlement Commission and declared income pertaining to transactions with the assessee-company. 4. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer has already been offered for tax and the assessee has also paid due tax thereon. Moreover, the Settlement Commission has also accepted the same vide order dated 30.04.2023 passed by the Interim Board for Settlement Commission. The 3 ITA No. 3024 & 3025/DEL/2023 [A.Ys 2013-14 & 2015-16] Time Computech Services ld. counsel for the assessee argued vehemently that one amount cannot be taxed twice. Copy of the said order has been furnished on record. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon several decisions of the co-ordinate bench including the case of DCIT Vs. Parkash Sachdeva ITA No. 3028 & 3035/DEL/2023 for A.Ys 2015-16 and 2016-17 order dated 27.02.2025 and in the case of Vijay Kumar Sachdeva, Individual, a director of M/s Laxmi Remote [India] Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 2885/DEL/2023 and others order dated 31.12.2024. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. co-ordinate bench in the case of Vijay Kumar Sachdeva [supra], has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant portion of the Tribunal order is reproduced for ready reference as under: “14. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Interim Board for Settlement has examined the issues arising out of search and the 4 ITA No. 3024 & 3025/DEL/2023 [A.Ys 2013-14 & 2015-16] Time Computech Services resultant offer of income made by the assessee/assessee-group. We find that the assessee had declared an amount of Rs. 39.29 crore as income returned u/s 153A, and an additional amount of Rs. 34.07 crore was offered before the Interim Board for Settlement during the settlement proceedings. The Interim Board for Settlement further considered an amount of Rs 6.25 crore as additional income, aggregating to Rs. 79.61 crores as total income of M/s Laxmi Remote India Pvt Ltd in its order u/s 245D(4) dated 24.04.2023. The Interim Board for Settlement has held that the aggregate total income of Rs 79.61 crore has covered the entire amount pertaining to accommodation entries and its utilization related to individuals as well as the company for AY 2012-13 to AY 2018-19. We further find that the Revenue has not challenged the decision of the Interim Board for Settlement nor the ld DR has controverted the findings of the Interim Board for Settlement. XXXX 22. We find that the CIT(A) has arrived at his findings on the basis of the IBS order. We also note that no materials or averment has been made by the Revenue challenging the decision of the Interim Board for Settlement nor the ld DR has presented any evidence controverting the order of the Interim Board for Settlement. We are therefore, of considered view, that no interference is called for in the decision of the CIT(A). The grounds 1 to 4 of the Revenue are dismissed.” 5 ITA No. 3024 & 3025/DEL/2023 [A.Ys 2013-14 & 2015-16] Time Computech Services 8. Respectfully following the same, grounds raised by the Revenue in both the appeals stand dismissed. 9. In the result, both appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 3024 and 3025/DEL/2023 are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 29.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 29th APRIL, 2025. VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi 6 ITA No. 3024 & 3025/DEL/2023 [A.Ys 2013-14 & 2015-16] Time Computech Services Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation Member 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S 7. Date on which the final Tribunal Order is uploaded by the Sr. P.S./P.S. on official website 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk alongwith Tribunal Order 9. Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judiSIS portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerks 10. Date on which the file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial) 11. The date on which the file goes for xerox 12. The date on which the file goes for endorsement 13. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 14. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the Tribunal order 15. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section 16. Date of Dispatch of the Order "