ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Sandeep Sharma, New Delhi

ITA 142/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0227 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASHANTAN SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: ADHIR SAMAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Business income; Source of fund; Accommodation entries
• Section: 131; 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.142/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ITO, WARD 46 (4), VS. SHRI SANDEEP SHARMA, NEW DELHI. D-5/105, IST FLOOR, AVADH COMPLEX, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AQTPS5071Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ADHIR SAMAL, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI T. VASHANTAN, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.07.2015 O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE, IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-X XX, NEW DELHI DATED 28.10.2011. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REV ENUE READ AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 2 1. REDUCING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,29,98,561/- TO RS. 4,39,985/- RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT. 2. DIRECTING THE A.O. TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMMISSION INCOME WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIATING EVIDEN CE AGAINST THE A.O'S FINDING THAT THE AMOUNT UNDER DISPUTE IS UNEX PLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 09.02 .2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,15,000/-. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS S ELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) WAS ISSUED ON 06.08.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 19.01.2010, FIX ING THE CASE FOR 01.02.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSE E HIMSELF APPEARED AND WAS ASKED TO FILE THE DETAILS OF HIS INCOME AND FIN ANCIAL TRANSACTION DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. SUBSEQUENLTY, NOTICES U/S 142( 1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WERE SERVED ON THE ASSES SEE BUT THESE NOTICES WERE REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. IN VIEW OF THE NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES, THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1) (B) AND THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THE SAME WITH PARTIAL DETAILS AS PER THE QU ESTIONNAIRE. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS HAVING ONLY ONE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK OF BARODA. THE AO INFORMED THE ASSESSEE T HAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AN ACCOUNT WIT H PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, RAJENDRA PLAC E, NEW DELHI AND A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,46,25,891/- WAS DEPOSITED IN C ASH IN THE SAID BANK ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 3 ACCOUNT AND THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY REPLY TO THE SAID QUESTION AND SOUGHT FOR TIME TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS ABOUT THE NA TURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 09.11.2010 AND LATER ON, ADJOURNED TO 22.11.2010 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. MEANWHILE, THE AO VERIFI ED THE CASH TRANSACTIONS FROM THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND THE BANK INFORMED THAT THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED BY SHRI SANDEEP SHARMA IN TH E NAME OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN, M/S. OM WEIGHING INDIA IN ANOT HER BRANCH I.E. P.N.B, SCOPE TOWER, LAXMI NAGAR NEW DELHI AND ALSO INFORME D THAT RS.4,29,98,561/- ( WHICH INCLUDES CASH DEPOSIT OF R S. 3,86,62,391/- AND OTHER DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.43,36,170/-) WAS DEP OSITED IN CASH DURING THE YEAR. THE AO HAS REPRODUCED THE BANK STATEMENT IN HIS ORDER. THE AO OBSERVED THAT FROM A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEME NT, IT REVEALED THAT NOMINAL BALANCE WAS BEING MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND EVERY DEPOSIT ENTRY WAS FOLLOWED BY WITHDRAWAL OF IDENTIC AL AMOUNTS. ON 22.11.2010 WHEN THE STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE ASSESS EE WAS RESUMED, THE AO AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS AND SOURCE AND NATURE OF DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT M AINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT HE WAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. OM WEIGHTING INDIA AND DIRECTOR OF TWO COMPANIES I. E. M/S. PROLON ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 4 MARKETING PVT. LTD. AND M/S. JA GANG PLASTICS (INDI A) PRIVATE LIMITED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT NO BUSINESS WAS B EING CARRIED OUT BY M/S. OM WEIGHING INDIA AND THE OTHER TWO COMPANIES. BUT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVID E THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF HUGE AMOUNTS OF CASH/FUND INFLOW, THE ASS ESSEE SHOWED IGNORANCE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS AND DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSEES STATEMENT WAS RECORDED TILL 22.11.2010 AND THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 26.11.2010 FOR FURTHER RECORDING THE STATEMENT. BUT, ON 26.11.2010, NONE ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN R EPLY WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NO T HAVING ANY DETAILS IN HIS POSSESSION ABOUT THE HUGE AMOUNTS OF DEPOSITS T OTALING TO RS.4,29,98,561/- AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT FILI NG ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCES OR EXPLANATIONS REGARDING NATURE AND SOU RCE OF DEPOSITS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE BANKS DETAILS AND THE STATEMENT RECORDE D BY THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- (I) SH. SANDEEP SHARMA (ASSESSEE) IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S OM WEIGHING INDIA FOR WHICH NO INCOME WAS RETURNED. TH E ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF THE TWO DIRECTORS IN M/S PRO ION MARKET ING PVT. LTD. AND M/S JA GANG PLASTICS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED. THE AS SESSEE IN HIS ANSWER TO QUESTION NOS.13 & 14 DENIED HAVING KNOWN THE OTHER DIRECTORS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES. (II) HE HAS DEPOSITED TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.4,29,98,56 1/- 90 % OF WHICH IS IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WIT H PNB, SCOPE TOWER, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI BY HIM IN THE NAME OF M/S OM WEIGHING INDIA, HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN. THE EVIDEN CE IS OBTAINED FROM THE BANK AND IS PLACED ON RECORDS. ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 5 (III) HE HAS TRANSFERRED ALMOST WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT BY CHEQUES TO M/S PROLON MARKETING PVT. LTD. AND M/S JA GANG PLAS TICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED IN WHICH HE IS DIRECTOR. (IV) DESPITE PROVIDING WITH MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE DIDN'T REVEAL THE SOURCE OF FUNDS AMOUNTIN G TO RS.4,29,98,561/- IN HIS ACCOUNT IN THE PNB. (V) HE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS AND THE FUNDS ARE NOTHING BUT HIS UNEXPLAINED INCOM E FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED TO T AX. (VI) THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED FOR FINANCING HIS BUS INESS TRANSACTIONS OF M/S PROLON MARKETING PVT. LTD. AND M/S JA GANG PLASTICS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED. (VII) THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARIES AND DID NOT RETURN ANY INCOME FROM HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN. (VIII) THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARIES ONLY AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,29,98,561/- FOUND DEPOSITED IN HIS A CCOUNT IN THE PNB DURING THE F. Y. 2007-08 IS UNEXPLAINED INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE AO, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COME FORWARD TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION REGAR DING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH AND OTHER DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS .4,29,98,561/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH PNB AND HELD THAT THIS AMOUNT STO OD UNEXPLAINED AND, THEREFORE, DEEMED IT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 O F THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT BY PASSING ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY ADDING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN BANK OF RS.4,29,98,561/- AS ASSESSES INCOME. ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 6 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE CIT (A) AFTER GOING THROU GH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN R EPRODUCED BY THE CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER WAS PLEASED TO PARTLY ALLOW THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE ASSESSEES INCOME A S COMMISSION BUSINESS FOR PROVIDING ENTRIES TO PARTIES @ RS. 1/PER RS. 10 0/- AND THUS CALCULATED ASSESSEES INCOME AS RS. 4,39,985/- IN ADDITION TO HIS OTHER INCOME RETURNED BY HIM. . THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF TH E AR, ASSESSMENT ORDER OF A.O., GROUNDS OF APPEALS, AND D ISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THE AR AND APPELLANT VERY CAREFULLY. TH E AIR DATA SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,46,25,891/- IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH P UNJAB NATIONAL BANK. WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF D EPOSITS, HE DID NOT REPLY ANYTHING TO THE AO. THE OBSERVATION OF AO IN PARA-10 & 11 OF HIS ORDER SPEAKS THAT SH. MUKESH GAUAM AND SH .CHANDRA PRAKASH BHARDWAJ WAS ISSUING CHEQUES TO TWO OF THEI R OWN COMPANIES M/S PROLON MARKETING PVT LTD. AND M/S JA GANG PLASTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THESE TWO COMPANIES THEN GIVE CHE QUES TO BENEFICIARIES, WHO HAVE GIVEN CASH TO THE APPELLANT FOR GETTING ENTRY THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. IN THE PROCESS, THE APPELL ANT GETS COMMISSION @ 0.25% TO 0.5% OR MORE IN CASH, WHICH I S HIS PROFIT OR INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ENTRY TO THOSE PE OPLE. THE ISSUE INVOLVED HERE IS IDENTICAL WITH THE ISSUE OF SHRI MANOJ AGRAWAL & BEMCO JEWELLERS PRIVATE LTD (BJPL) WHICH HAD BEEN DECIDED BY ITAT SPECIAL BENCH DELHI, IN 2008. NOW THE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI H.C. HAD PASSED AN INTERIM ORD ER IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGRAWAL REPORTED IN 2011-TIOL-645-HC-DEL-IT V IDE ORDER DT. 30.09.2011. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS YE T TO DECIDE THE CASE AFTER GETTING RELEVANT PAPERS BOOKS FROM BOTH THE PARTIES I.E. REVENUE AND THE APPELLANT SH.MANOJ AGGARWAL & OTHER S. THE ITAT HAD ACCEPTED THE COMMISSION @ 50 PAISE TO RS.100 AN D ALLOWED FURTHER DEDUCTION OF 15 PAISA FOR EXPENSES ON MAINT ENANCE OF STAFF, TRAVELING TO BANK AND OTHERS PLACE AND OTHER OFFICE EXPENSES. I HAVE ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 7 DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THE APPELLANT AND HIS AR, PERSUADED THEM TO ESTIMATE THE COMMISSION INCOME AT RE.1 PER 100 F OR ESTIMATION OF HIS INCOME FROM PROVIDING ENTRY OPERATIONS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THESE OPERATIONS AR E BOGUS AND ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TO GIVE RELIEF TO BENEFICIARIES BY TREATING SUCH ENTRIES AS LOAN / GIFT / INVESTMENT AND REDUCING TA X BURDEN IN THEIR HANDS. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A TABLE OF CALCULA TION OF PEAK COMMISSION / COMMISSION @0.25% IN P.B. PAGE - 9 TO 14 IN THE PAPER BOOK. AS PER THE TABLE, THE TOTAL COMMISSION CALCULATED @ 0.25% ON AMOUNT CREDITED OF RS.4,39,98,561/- IS RS. 1,09,996/- ONLY. THE A.O. HAD TAKEN THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT AT RS.4,29,98,561 AS CA SH DEPOSIT IN APPELLANT'S PNB A/C. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD DISCLO SED A HIGHER FIGURE OF RS.4,39,98,561/-, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE APPELLANT'S FIGURE WITH THAT OBTAINED BY A.O. FROM BANK AND RECONCILE THE TOTAL CASH CREDIT IN APPELLANT'S A/C, ON WHICH CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED. SINCE THE APPELLANT ADMITS BONAFI DELY TO HAVE GIVEN SUCH CHEQUES TO PARTIES THROUGH TWO OF HIS CO MPANIES, I ESTIMATE APPELLANT'S INCOME FROM COMMISSION BUSINES S ON PROVIDING ENTRIES TO PARTIES @ RE.1/- PER RS.100/- AND CALCUL ATE HIS INCOME AT RS.4,39,98,561 X 1/100 = RS.4,39,985/- IN ADDITION TO HIS OTHER INCOMES RETURNED AND ASSESSED BY A.O. THE A.O. IS D IRECTED TO RECOMPUTE HIS TOTAL INCOME AND CHARGE INTERESTS U/S 234-A, 234-B, 234-C, 234-D ACCORDINGLY, WHICH ARE MANDATORY IN LA W. 4. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 5. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITT ED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY REDUCED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDITS IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMMISSION INCOME WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCES AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT THE A MOUNT UNDER DISPUTE WAS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT EVEN THE ALTERNATE PRAYER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WAS TO CONSID ER THE PEAK-CREDIT, BUT THE LD CIT(A) HAS GULPED WHATEVER THE ASSESSEE SAID AND TREATED THE ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 8 INCOME AS FROM COMMISSION FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRY, WHICH, ACCORDING TO LD DR, IS ERRONEOUS. HE PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO UPHELD. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIE D ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TH E ADDITION OF RS.4,29,98,561/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NATUR E AND SOURCE OF CASH AND OTHER DEPOSITS AND HELD THE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE ADMISSION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT HE WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FOR COMMISSION @ 0.25 % TO 0.50% OR MORE IN CASH AND THAT BEING HIS PROFIT OR INCOME SH OULD ONLY BE TAXED AND NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT . EX-CONSEQUENTI, LD. CIT (A) ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE @ RS.1 /- PER RS.100/- AND CALCULATED THE INCOME AS RS.4,39,985/- ALONG WITH O THER INCOME OF ASSESSEE WHICH IS REFLECTED IN HIS RETURN. THE REVENUE IS A GGRIEVED BY THE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). IN THIS CASE, W E FIND THAT THE AO ISSUED FIRST NOTICE DATED 06.08.2009. PURSUANT TO IT, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI PAWAN KEDIA APPEARED ON 24.12.2009 AND THEREAFTER, WE FIND THAT SEVERAL NOTICES/ QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE/ AR, WHO DID NOT BOTHER TO RESPOND. ONLY AFTER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1 )(B) WAS ISSUED ON ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 9 01.07.2010, THE ASSESSEE CAME UP WITH PARTIAL DETAI LS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 29.10.2010 & 22.11.2010, AND THEREAFTER,WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO COME ON 2 6.11.2010 FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION, HE DID NOT TURN UP. THEREAFTER, WE FIN D THAT THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 16.12.2010, U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY STATING THE NON- COOPERATION CONDUCT OF ASSESSEE. LATER, WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT HE HAD SENT A LETTER DA TED 16.12.2010, WHEREIN HE HAS EXPLAINED AND ADMITTED HIS BUSINESS OF PROVI DING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACTED UPON BY TH E AO BECAUSE HE PASSED THE ORDER ON 16.12.2010, SO THE ASSESSEE WAN TED THE SAID LETTER TO BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AS PER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME- TAX RULES, 1962. IN THE AFORESAID BACK-GROUND, WE FIND THAT THE FOLLOWI NG FACTS EMERGE FROM THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO : (A) THE ASSESSEE HAD A PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND WAS THE DIRECTOR OF TWO COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT K NOW WHO THE OTHER DIRECTORS IN THE SAID COMPANIES ARE, NAMELY, M/S. PROLON MARKETING PVT. LTD. AND M/S. JA GANG PLASTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.; (B) HE DOES NOT KNOW WHO DEPOSITED THE AMOUNTS IN H IS ACCOUNT IN PUNJAB & NATIONAL BANK; AND (C) HE DOES NOT DIVULGE ANYTHING ABOUT PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ETC BEFORE THE AO TILL THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED. SO, WE FIND THAT THE AO FELT HELPLESS BECAUSE ASSES SEE DID NOT DISCLOSE ANYTHING BEFORE HIM, SO HE RESORTED TO SECTION 144 ASSESSMENT, WITHOUT ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 10 RESORTING TO ANY INVESTIGATION AS TO WHERE THE MONE Y DEPOSITED IN ASSESSES BANK ACCOUNT IS BEING TRANSFERRED AND WHERE THE MON EY TRAIL ENDS. WHEREAS, WE FIND THAT CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH T HE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT SEEKING A REMAND REPORT FR OM AO, COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MODUS-OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT FIRST, CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN ACCOUNT OF ASS ESSEE IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ; AND IN THE SECOND STAGE, IT WAS TR ANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL TO TWO COMPANIES WHEREIN HE IS THE DIRECTOR ; AND IN THE THIRD STAGE, THE OTHER TWO DIRECTORS, NAMELY , SHRI MUKESH GAUAM AND SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH BHARDWAJ USED TO ISSUE CHE QUES TO THE ENTRY SEEKERS, THUS THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK IS BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE DEPOSITORS. HOWEVER, WE FIND THIS MODUS OPERANDI D OES NOT COME OUT OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OR EMERGE FROM THE RECORDS B EFORE US. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE M ODUS SIMPLY ACCEPTING THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AT LE AST CALLING FOR THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE TWO COMPANIES WHEREIN HE IS THE DI RECTOR TO VERIFY WHETHER THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE SAYING THAT HE IS ONLY AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER IS CORRECT OR NOT; OR BY CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT AND FIND OUT TO WHOM ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES W ERE GIVEN ETC. IN THE SAID SCENARIO, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT ( A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PUT FORTH HIS CASE ITA NOS.142/DEL./2012 11 BEFORE THE AO. THE AO SHALL NOT BE INFLUENCED BY A NY OF THE OBSERVATIONS WHICH WE HAVE MADE ABOVE AND HAS TO PASS THE ASSES SMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW, UNTRAMMELED BY ANY OBSERVATIONS BY US. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (A.T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2015 / TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.