Prem Chand Jain, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 63(2), New Delhi

ITA 1585/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4817 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 69C; 13; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO.1585/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PREM CHAND JAIN, 4205, GALI BARNA, SADAR BAZAR, NEW DELHI-110006 VS ITO WARD- 63 (2) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SALIL AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. VIPUL KASHYAP, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING: 27/09/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/09/2021 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-18, NEW DELHI DATED 31.08.2020 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 2 3. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES WERE HEARD AT LENGTH. CASE RECORD CAREFULLY PERUSED AND THE RELEVANT DECI SION BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE IS CONSIDERED. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2007 D ECLARING NIL INCOME. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143 (1) OF T HE ACT. 5. A LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF I. TAX, DELHI-I, NEW DELHI WHO FORW ARDED LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL- II, NEW DELHI ALONGWITH A CD CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF 3 ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY SH. RAKESH GUPTA, VISHESH GUPTA AND NAVNEET JAIN. ON THE BASIS OF TH ESE INFORMATION THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE AC T. 6. ON EXAMINING THE LIST OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY THE PARTIES MENTIONED HERE IN ABOVE THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING ENTRI ES :- 7. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN TRANSACTION AN D THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY SH. PREM CHAND DATED 23.03.2015 STATING THAT AS RE GARDS THE ALLEGED ENTRIES PROVIDED BY M/S. SH. BANKEY BIH ARI TRADING CO. & M/S. OM AGENCIES TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,80,383/- AND RS.27,20,545/- RESPECTIVELY NATUR E OF PURCHASE CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT O F THE ABOVE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M/S. PRABHU DAYAL CHA ND ALREADY FILED DATED 03.11.2014, HOWEVER, BEFORE CO NCLUDING AND COMING TO A DECISION IT WOULD BE WISE TO DISCUS S THE ISSUES MAINLY INVOLVED WHERE THE A/R OF THE ASSESSE E THOUGH 4 OUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS TRIED TO PROVE A LL THROUGH HIS SUBMISSION/ REPLIES FILED BEFORE THE UN DERSIGNED THAT THE PURCHASE FROM THE PARTIES AS MENTIONED BEL OW WERE GENUINE. 8. IN SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED PARTIES WISE PU RCHASE DETAILS, MONTH WISE SALE DETAILS, COPY OF BANK STAT EMENT RELATING TO PAYMENT MADE, PURCHASE ACCOUNT ETC. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE FROM PARTY WERE GENUINE AND NOT IN THE NAT URE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE AO WHO CONCLUDED THE ASSES SMENT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.37,00928/- U/S. 69C OF THE ACT. 9. THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT( A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 10. BEFORE ME THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW MY ATTENTION TO SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BE NCHES ON THE SAME FACTS AND POINTED OUT THE COORDINATE BENCH ES HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. 11. PER CONTRA THE DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDIN GS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5 12. I HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE ACCORDINGLY PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES. I FIND THAT TH IS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1512/DEL/2015 WAS SEIZED IDENTICAL ISSUE S AND ON IDENTICAL FACTS HELD AS UNDER :- 6 7 8 9 10 13. IN ANOTHER DECISION THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.705 9/DEL/2017 AND 7061/DEL/2017 WAS AGAIN SEIZED WITH SIMILAR SIT UATION WHEREIN IT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJENDER PRASAD THE RELEVANT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER :- 11 12 13 14 14. AS NO DISTINGUISHING DECISION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE AND PARITY OF FACTS. THE TWO DECISIONS DISCUSSED H ERE IN ABOVE I HOLD THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS BAD IN LAW AND THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S.69 C OF THE ACT HAS NO LEGS TO S TAND. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.09.2021. SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:- 30.09.2021 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 15 DATE OF DICTATION 2 7 .09.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 30.09.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 30.09.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 30.09.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30.09.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 30.09.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 30.09.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.09.2021 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER