THE BYKE HOSPITALITY LTD, MUMBAI V. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2(2) (1) , MUMBAI

ITA 1954/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The Byke Hospitality Ltd. appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the disallowance of sales promotion expenses amounting to Rs. 82,56,879. The expenses were claimed to be paid to Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. for sales promotion activities. However, investigations revealed that Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. was involved in providing bogus billing entries. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the expenses were incurred for genuine business purposes. The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that the reopening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion, noting that it was based on fresh information from the Investigation Wing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123459 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVANGI CHOPARA
• Keywords: Gift; Difference of opinion; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove; Change of opinion; TDS
• Section: 148; 143(3); 37(1); 274

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 1954/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Byke Hospitality Ltd., 156-158 Chakravarty Ashok Complex, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Colony S.O., Mumbai-400099. Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. PAN No. AAACK 2113 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Shivangi Chopara, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, DR Date of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 29/12/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds : 1. Disallowance of 'Sales Promotion Expenses amounting to Rs. 82,56,879/ Limited, whereas as per the facts & circumstances it should be allowed. 2. Disallowance of 'Sales Promotion Expenses' amounting to Rs. 82,56,879/ expenses were 143(3), being completed by order dated 06.09.2019 and no additions for the same has been made in the said proceeding. 3. Issuance of penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Briefly stated, fa engaged in the business of hotel and tourism. In the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 01.11.2017 declaring total income of completed u/s 143(3) of the was completed on 06.09.2019 determining total income at ₹6,81,08,542/-. Subsequently, on receipt of information that the assessee received accommodation entries for bogus expenses, the assessment was reopened by wa Act dated 28.03.2021. During the course of reassessment 1. Disallowance of 'Sales Promotion Expenses amounting to Rs. 82,56,879/-paid to Goldmoon Commodeal Private Limited, whereas as per the facts & circumstances it should 2. Disallowance of 'Sales Promotion Expenses' amounting to Rs. 82,56,879/- is bad in law because details of said expenses were submitted during assessment proceedings us 143(3), being completed by order dated 06.09.2019 and no additions for the same has been made in the said 3. Issuance of penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Income Tax Act. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of hotel and tourism. In the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 01.11.2017 declaring total income of ₹5,69,92,460/-. The assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 06.09.2019 determining total income at . Subsequently, on receipt of information that the assessee received accommodation entries for bogus expenses, the assessment was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2021. During the course of reassessment The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 2 1. Disallowance of 'Sales Promotion Expenses amounting to paid to Goldmoon Commodeal Private Limited, whereas as per the facts & circumstances it should 2. Disallowance of 'Sales Promotion Expenses' amounting to is bad in law because details of said submitted during assessment proceedings us 143(3), being completed by order dated 06.09.2019 and no additions for the same has been made in the said 3. Issuance of penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the cts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of hotel and tourism. In the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 01.11.2017 . The assessment tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 06.09.2019 determining total income at . Subsequently, on receipt of information that the assessee received accommodation entries for bogus expenses, the y of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2021. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to justify the expenses claimed of ₹82,56,879/- in respect of invoices issued by Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. The assessee submi statement showing payment to said party and contended that expenses have been incurred genuinely. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee of incurring the sales promotion expenses of ₹82,56,879/ Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. under: “5.2 Information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that a Search & Seizure/Survey us. 132/133A of the LT Act, 1961 was carried out at the residential and office premises of Shri Kamal Kumar Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhyay and Ranjit Singh on 21.05.2018 and during the course of Search/Survey operation incriminating documents/papers were found. They have control over a number of entities which providing bogus bills to beneficiaries in form of bogus purchases, services, sales etc. Shri Kamal Jain, Deepak Upadhaya and Ranjit Kumar Singh have explained the modus operandi adopted by them to facilitate the Bogus Billing which clearly p provided/facilitated in large scale of bogus bills to different proceedings, the assessee was asked to justify the expenses claimed in respect of invoices issued by Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. The assessee submitted copy of the bank statement showing payment to said party and contended that expenses have been incurred genuinely. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee of incurring the sales promotion 82,56,879/-. In respect of the invoices raised by the Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. the Assessing Officer observed 5.2 Information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that a Search & Seizure/Survey us. 132/133A of the LT Act, 1961 was carried out at the residential and office premises of Shri Kamal Kumar Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhyay and Ranjit Singh on 21.05.2018 and during the course of Search/Survey operation incriminating documents/papers were found. They have control over a number of entities which were used for providing bogus bills to beneficiaries in form of bogus purchases, services, sales etc. Shri Kamal Jain, Deepak Upadhaya and Ranjit Kumar Singh have explained the modus operandi adopted by them to facilitate the Bogus Billing which clearly proved that they have provided/facilitated in large scale of bogus bills to different The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 3 proceedings, the assessee was asked to justify the expenses claimed in respect of invoices issued by Goldmoon tted copy of the bank statement showing payment to said party and contended that expenses have been incurred genuinely. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee of incurring the sales promotion voices raised by the the Assessing Officer observed as 5.2 Information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that a Search & Seizure/Survey us. 132/133A of the LT Act, 1961 was carried out at the residential and office premises of Shri Kamal Kumar Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhyay and Ranjit Singh on 21.05.2018 and during the course of Search/Survey operation huge incriminating documents/papers were found. They have were used for providing bogus bills to beneficiaries in form of bogus purchases, services, sales etc. Shri Kamal Jain, Deepak Upadhaya and Ranjit Kumar Singh have explained the modus operandi adopted by them to facilitate the Bogus roved that they have provided/facilitated in large scale of bogus bills to different beneficiaries in lieu of commission. Shri Kamal Kumar Jain has categorically admitted that all these Bank accounts belong to different entities/concerns controlled and man by him and these are shell entities used for providing bogus billings. Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd is one such entity established with the sole purpose of providing accommodation entry of bogus billing. 5.3 The assessee has made transactions amounting 82,56,879/- head sales promotion expenses. The onus to prove that such expenses in the nature of sales promotion expenses are genuine in nature lies on the assessee but it has not been able to discharge su asseessee did not make any effort to convert the finding recorded by the Investigation Wing. In its submissions, the assessee alleged that all transactions made with Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd were in the nature of e submitted bank statements to show that all the expenses were made through banking channels. If a transaction was undertaken through banking channel, it does not provide any sanctity that the transactions are true and correct.The contention that the payments are made by account payee cheque is not a fool proof method of substantiating the assessee's claim. 5.4 It has also submitted invoices to prove the legitimacy of such transactions .The production of invoice is of no help to the assessee, such documents are meticulously maintained both by the beneficiaries in lieu of commission. Shri Kamal Kumar Jain has categorically admitted that all these Bank accounts belong to different entities/concerns controlled and man by him and these are shell entities used for providing bogus billings. Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd is one such entity established with the sole purpose of providing accommodation entry of bogus billing. 5.3 The assessee has made transactions amounting with Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd under the head sales promotion expenses. The onus to prove that such expenses in the nature of sales promotion expenses are genuine in nature lies on the assessee but it has not been able to discharge such burden. It is also evident that the asseessee did not make any effort to convert the finding recorded by the Investigation Wing. In its submissions, the assessee alleged that all transactions made with Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd were in the nature of expenses and has submitted bank statements to show that all the expenses were made through banking channels. If a transaction was undertaken through banking channel, it does not provide any sanctity that the transactions are true and correct.The that the payments are made by account payee cheque is not a fool proof method of substantiating the assessee's claim. 5.4 It has also submitted invoices to prove the legitimacy of such transactions .The production of invoice is of no help to the assessee, since in the activity of accommodation entry, such documents are meticulously maintained both by the The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 4 beneficiaries in lieu of commission. Shri Kamal Kumar Jain has categorically admitted that all these Bank accounts belong to different entities/concerns controlled and managed by him and these are shell entities used for providing bogus billings. Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd is one such entity established with the sole purpose of providing 5.3 The assessee has made transactions amounting to Rs. with Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd under the head sales promotion expenses. The onus to prove that such expenses in the nature of sales promotion expenses are genuine in nature lies on the assessee but it has not been ch burden. It is also evident that the asseessee did not make any effort to convert the finding recorded by the Investigation Wing. In its submissions, the assessee alleged that all transactions made with Goldmoon xpenses and has submitted bank statements to show that all the expenses were made through banking channels. If a transaction was undertaken through banking channel, it does not provide any sanctity that the transactions are true and correct.The that the payments are made by account payee cheque is not a fool proof method of substantiating the 5.4 It has also submitted invoices to prove the legitimacy of such transactions .The production of invoice is of no help to since in the activity of accommodation entry, such documents are meticulously maintained both by the entry provider and entry seeker. It is also not important whether the amount is small or big and whether the asseessee is having loss or profit. There may reasons for seeking the accommodation entry as it leads to generation of the cash in the hands of assessee. The contention of the assessee cannot be accepted when the nature of the entity providing the services has been accepted as Bogus. It i established to give accommodation entries to clients.The make-believe transactions as presented by the assessee cannot be blindly accepted in view of the above facts. Truth or genuineness of such transactions must prev smoke screen, created by way of pre steps taken by the assessee, with a view to imparting a color of genuineness and character of commercial nature, to such transactions. 5.5 It may be appreciated that after making independe enquiries, findings of Investigation Wing and details submitted by the assessee, I have come to conclusion the assessee had not made such expense and only accommodation bills were taken in order to inflate the expenses and bring down the profitabil the payment of taxes. Thus, from the above analysis of facts, it is crystal clear that the expenses made by the assessee from the above party and claimed as expenses in its profit and loss account are not genuine. 5.6 The assessee was dated. 16.03.2022 along with a copy of the draft assessment entry provider and entry seeker. It is also not important whether the amount is small or big and whether the asseessee is having loss or profit. There may be number of reasons for seeking the accommodation entry as it leads to generation of the cash in the hands of assessee. The contention of the assessee cannot be accepted when the nature of the entity providing the services has been accepted as Bogus. It is an established fact that entity was established to give accommodation entries to clients.The believe transactions as presented by the assessee cannot be blindly accepted in view of the above facts. Truth or genuineness of such transactions must prevail over the smoke screen, created by way of pre-mediated series of steps taken by the assessee, with a view to imparting a color of genuineness and character of commercial nature, to such transactions. 5.5 It may be appreciated that after making independe enquiries, findings of Investigation Wing and details submitted by the assessee, I have come to conclusion the assessee had not made such expense and only accommodation bills were taken in order to inflate the expenses and bring down the profitability thereby avoiding the payment of taxes. Thus, from the above analysis of facts, it is crystal clear that the expenses made by the assessee from the above party and claimed as expenses in its profit and loss account are not genuine. 5.6 The assessee was asked to show cause vide notice dated. 16.03.2022 along with a copy of the draft assessment The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 5 entry provider and entry seeker. It is also not important whether the amount is small or big and whether the be number of reasons for seeking the accommodation entry as it leads to generation of the cash in the hands of assessee. The contention of the assessee cannot be accepted when the nature of the entity providing the services has been accepted s an established fact that entity was established to give accommodation entries to clients.The believe transactions as presented by the assessee cannot be blindly accepted in view of the above facts. Truth ail over the mediated series of steps taken by the assessee, with a view to imparting a color of genuineness and character of commercial nature, to such 5.5 It may be appreciated that after making independent enquiries, findings of Investigation Wing and details submitted by the assessee, I have come to conclusion that the assessee had not made such expense and only accommodation bills were taken in order to inflate the ity thereby avoiding the payment of taxes. Thus, from the above analysis of facts, it is crystal clear that the expenses made by the assessee from the above party and claimed as expenses in its profit asked to show cause vide notice dated. 16.03.2022 along with a copy of the draft assessment order proposing the modifications to income why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. The reply of the assessee made on 17.03.2022 is considered but not accepted in view of the facts and discussion as above. In the light of the discussions and reasoning provided in the preceding paras, the claim of expenditure on sales promotion expense made to Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd by the as satisfactory. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 82,56,879/ claimed by the assessee as expenses is treated as Bogus expenses and is hereby disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding us.270A of the IT Act initiated separately for under consequence of misreporting of income. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance observing as under: “4.1 Ground No. 1 & 2 relate to disallowance of sales promotion expenses of Rs. 82,56,879/ under consideration, the appellant claimed sales promotion expenses of Rs. 21,59,51,870/ vouchers, publications, events, etc. Out of this expenditure, the appellant has shown Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. (GPL) and in support of the claim, the appellant argued that invoice for the same had been issued by GCPL and payment after TDS thereon was order proposing the modifications to income why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. The reply of the assessee made on 22 is considered but not accepted in view of the facts and discussion as above. In the light of the discussions and reasoning provided in the preceding paras, the claim of expenditure on sales promotion expense made to Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd by the assessee is not found satisfactory. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 82,56,879/ claimed by the assessee as expenses is treated as Bogus expenses and is hereby disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding us.270A of the IT Act, 1961 is hereby initiated separately for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income.” On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance observing as under: 4.1 Ground No. 1 & 2 relate to disallowance of sales otion expenses of Rs. 82,56,879/-. During the year under consideration, the appellant claimed sales promotion expenses of Rs. 21,59,51,870/- on a/c of gifts, promotional vouchers, publications, events, etc. Out of this expenditure, the appellant has shown payment of Rs. 82,56,879/ Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. (GPL) and in support of the claim, the appellant argued that invoice for the same had been issued by GCPL and payment after TDS thereon was The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 6 order proposing the modifications to income why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. The reply of the assessee made on 22 is considered but not accepted in view of the facts and discussion as above. In the light of the discussions and reasoning provided in the preceding paras, the claim of expenditure on sales promotion expense made to Goldmoon sessee is not found satisfactory. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 82,56,879/- claimed by the assessee as expenses is treated as Bogus expenses and is hereby disallowed and added back to the , 1961 is hereby reporting of income in On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the 4.1 Ground No. 1 & 2 relate to disallowance of sales . During the year under consideration, the appellant claimed sales promotion on a/c of gifts, promotional vouchers, publications, events, etc. Out of this expenditure, payment of Rs. 82,56,879/- to Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. (GPL) and in support of the claim, the appellant argued that invoice for the same had been issued by GCPL and payment after TDS thereon was made through banking channel. All these contentions of th appellant were duly considered and a reasoned finding on each contention was given by the AO in the assessment order while disallowing this expenditure. During the appellate proceedings also, the appellant submits the same argument but did not submit any support of services rendered by GCPL for making payment on a/c of Sales promotion expenses, which is the primary condition to justify the sale promotion expenses. Mere filing of copy of ledger, tds certificates, invoice copy and ba statement can't prove the service rendered by GCPL. As pointed out by the AO in assessment order that these documents are maintained meticulously in case of accommodation entries by the entry provider and entry seeker. Further, the invoices show that it towards advertising & branding services but no details/samples of such advertisement/branding activities are enclosed with the invoices. Also, the payment through banking channel is not sacrosanct and doesn't prove the services rendered argued that the search/survey was conducted on 21.05.2018 i.e. after the completion of financial year, therefore, nobody can assume that party is bogus. In this regard, the AO has categorically mentioned the mod operandi in his order and this finding was given after investigation of the investigation wing as well as examination of the information by AO. Further, the expenses have been claimed by the appellant and therefore, primary onus was on the appellant to made through banking channel. All these contentions of th appellant were duly considered and a reasoned finding on each contention was given by the AO in the assessment order while disallowing this expenditure. During the appellate proceedings also, the appellant submits the same argument but did not submit any documentary evidence in support of services rendered by GCPL for making payment on a/c of Sales promotion expenses, which is the primary condition to justify the sale promotion expenses. Mere filing of copy of ledger, tds certificates, invoice copy and ba statement can't prove the service rendered by GCPL. As pointed out by the AO in assessment order that these documents are maintained meticulously in case of accommodation entries by the entry provider and entry seeker. Further, the invoices show that it relates to charges towards advertising & branding services but no details/samples of such advertisement/branding activities are enclosed with the invoices. Also, the payment through banking channel is not sacrosanct and doesn't prove the services rendered and it's genuineness. The appellant further argued that the search/survey was conducted on 21.05.2018 i.e. after the completion of financial year, therefore, nobody can assume that party is bogus. In this regard, the AO has categorically mentioned the mod operandi in his order and this finding was given after investigation of the investigation wing as well as examination of the information by AO. Further, the expenses have been claimed by the appellant and therefore, primary onus was on the appellant to rebut the finding of the AO by The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 7 made through banking channel. All these contentions of the appellant were duly considered and a reasoned finding on each contention was given by the AO in the assessment order while disallowing this expenditure. During the appellate proceedings also, the appellant submits the same documentary evidence in support of services rendered by GCPL for making payment on a/c of Sales promotion expenses, which is the primary condition to justify the sale promotion expenses. Mere filing of copy of ledger, tds certificates, invoice copy and bank statement can't prove the service rendered by GCPL. As pointed out by the AO in assessment order that these documents are maintained meticulously in case of accommodation entries by the entry provider and entry relates to charges towards advertising & branding services but no details/samples of such advertisement/branding activities are enclosed with the invoices. Also, the payment through banking channel is not sacrosanct and doesn't prove the and it's genuineness. The appellant further argued that the search/survey was conducted on 21.05.2018 i.e. after the completion of financial year, therefore, nobody can assume that party is bogus. In this regard, the AO has categorically mentioned the modus operandi in his order and this finding was given after investigation of the investigation wing as well as examination of the information by AO. Further, the expenses have been claimed by the appellant and therefore, primary rebut the finding of the AO by furnishing sufficient documentary evidences. Especially in a situation where the entry provider himself made a statement during search/survey operation that it runs various entities including GCPL for providing accommodation more stringent onus lies with the appellant to prove the services rendered by such entities for sales promotion. 4.1.2 Further, it is ascertained from the re that the assessment was re of the Act dated 28.04.2021 on the specific information from Investigation Wing that the appellant had obtained accommodation bills from a company namely CPL, which was unearthed during the search/survey operation on 21.05.2018 at the residential and office premise Kamal Kumar Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhyay and Ranjit Singh. Therefore, the appellant's plea that the case was reopened on the basis of general information is not correct. Further, this re end of the assess upon any responsibility on AO to establish the reason on account of the failure on the part of the assessee. So the appellant plea that no addition was made in the assessment order us 143(3) of the Act even though d promotion expenses to GCPL were available with the A during original assessment proceedings, doesn't debar the A for reopening the assessment and making the addition on receipt of specific information from Investigation Wing. 4.1.3 The appel natural justice but failed to specify about violation of furnishing sufficient documentary evidences. Especially in a situation where the entry provider himself made a statement during search/survey operation that it runs various entities including GCPL for providing accommodation entries, the more stringent onus lies with the appellant to prove the services rendered by such entities for sales promotion. 4.1.2 Further, it is ascertained from the re-assessment order that the assessment was re-opened by issuing notice us 148 t dated 28.04.2021 on the specific information from Investigation Wing that the appellant had obtained accommodation bills from a company namely CPL, which was unearthed during the search/survey operation on 21.05.2018 at the residential and office premise Kamal Kumar Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhyay and Ranjit Singh. Therefore, the appellant's plea that the case was reopened on the basis of general information is not correct. Further, this re-opening was made within four years from the end of the assessment year and therefore, it doesn't cast upon any responsibility on AO to establish the reason on account of the failure on the part of the assessee. So the appellant plea that no addition was made in the assessment order us 143(3) of the Act even though details of sale promotion expenses to GCPL were available with the A during original assessment proceedings, doesn't debar the A for reopening the assessment and making the addition on receipt of specific information from Investigation Wing. 4.1.3 The appellant has also raised the issue of principles of natural justice but failed to specify about violation of The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 8 furnishing sufficient documentary evidences. Especially in a situation where the entry provider himself made a statement during search/survey operation that it runs various entities entries, the more stringent onus lies with the appellant to prove the services rendered by such entities for sales promotion. assessment order opened by issuing notice us 148 t dated 28.04.2021 on the specific information from Investigation Wing that the appellant had obtained accommodation bills from a company namely CPL, which was unearthed during the search/survey operation on 21.05.2018 at the residential and office premises of Shri Kamal Kumar Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhyay and Ranjit Singh. Therefore, the appellant's plea that the case was reopened on the basis of general information is not correct. opening was made within four years from the ment year and therefore, it doesn't cast upon any responsibility on AO to establish the reason on account of the failure on the part of the assessee. So the appellant plea that no addition was made in the assessment etails of sale promotion expenses to GCPL were available with the A during original assessment proceedings, doesn't debar the A for reopening the assessment and making the addition on receipt of specific information from Investigation Wing. lant has also raised the issue of principles of natural justice but failed to specify about violation of principle of natural justice in this case. From the reassessment order, I find that notices u/s 148/143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued in time and appellant's objection was duly disposed off before completing the re-assessment. Also, the AO has issued specific notice w.r.t. sales promotion expenses and the written reply of the appellant has been duly considered in the re order. Further, the each contention of the appellant, which make the re assessment order speaking in nature. In view of these facts, the contention of the appellant about violation of natural justice is rejected. 4.1.4 During the appell cited several case laws of jurisdictional as well as non jurisdictional High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court but didn't correlate the facts of these case laws with the facts of the present appeal and it's applicability i Therefore, contention of the appellant in this respect is rejected due to failure in establishing the correlation of facts of the cited case laws and the present case. Keeping in view the above facts of the case, I don't find any reason of disagreement with the order of the AO. Hence, all the contentions of the appellant w.r.t. disallowance of sales promotion expenses paid to GCPL are hereby rejected and thus, first two grounds of appeal are dismissed. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of t containing pages 1 to 283. principle of natural justice in this case. From the reassessment order, I find that notices u/s 148/143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued in time and pellant's objection was duly disposed off before completing assessment. Also, the AO has issued specific notice w.r.t. sales promotion expenses and the written reply of the appellant has been duly considered in the re-assessment order. Further, the AO has elaborately given his finding on each contention of the appellant, which make the re assessment order speaking in nature. In view of these facts, the contention of the appellant about violation of natural justice is rejected. 4.1.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has cited several case laws of jurisdictional as well as non jurisdictional High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court but didn't correlate the facts of these case laws with the facts of the present appeal and it's applicability in the present case. Therefore, contention of the appellant in this respect is rejected due to failure in establishing the correlation of facts of the cited case laws and the present case. Keeping in view the above facts of the case, I don't find any of disagreement with the order of the AO. Hence, all the contentions of the appellant w.r.t. disallowance of sales promotion expenses paid to GCPL are hereby rejected and thus, first two grounds of appeal are dismissed.” Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 283. The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 9 principle of natural justice in this case. From the reassessment order, I find that notices u/s 148/143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued in time and pellant's objection was duly disposed off before completing assessment. Also, the AO has issued specific notice w.r.t. sales promotion expenses and the written reply of the assessment AO has elaborately given his finding on each contention of the appellant, which make the re- assessment order speaking in nature. In view of these facts, the contention of the appellant about violation of natural ate proceedings, the appellant has cited several case laws of jurisdictional as well as non- jurisdictional High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court but didn't correlate the facts of these case laws with the facts of n the present case. Therefore, contention of the appellant in this respect is rejected due to failure in establishing the correlation of facts Keeping in view the above facts of the case, I don't find any of disagreement with the order of the AO. Hence, all the contentions of the appellant w.r.t. disallowance of sales promotion expenses paid to GCPL are hereby rejected and he assessee filed a paper book 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee has referred to certain invoices issued by Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. which are placed on record from Paper Book page 29 to 37. On perusal of these invoices, we find that bills have been raised by said parties for charges towards advertising and branding services. Though, in the bills details has been claimed to have a no such details are found to be attached in the Paper book. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee was specifically asked to justify the actually services rendered so as to satisfy the contentions of the sec incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. No such evidences in respect of services rendered by the party M/s Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. has been filed by the assessee. When these facts clubbed with the Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhaya and Shri Ranjeet Kumar Singh of having engaged in the providing accommodation entry bills, the claim of the assessee of sales promotion expenses of declined by the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee has referred to certain invoices issued by Goldmoon Commodeal Ltd. which are placed on record from Paper Book page 29 to 37. On perusal of these invoices, we find that bills have been raised by said parties for charges towards advertising and branding services. Though, in the bills details has been claimed to have a no such details are found to be attached in the Paper book. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee was specifically asked to justify the actually services rendered so as to satisfy the contentions of the section 37(1) of the Act of expense incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. No such evidences in respect of services rendered by the party M/s Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. has been filed by the assessee. When these facts clubbed with the fact of statement of Shri Kaml Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhaya and Shri Ranjeet Kumar Singh of having engaged in the providing accommodation entry bills, the claim of the assessee of sales promotion expenses of declined by the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld. The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 10 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee has referred to certain invoices issued by Goldmoon Commodeal Ltd. which are placed on record from Paper Book page 29 to 37. On perusal of these invoices, we find that bills have been raised by said parties for charges towards advertising and branding services. Though, in the bills details has been claimed to have attached but no such details are found to be attached in the Paper book. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee was specifically asked to justify the actually services rendered so as tion 37(1) of the Act of expense incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. No such evidences in respect of services rendered by the party M/s Goldmoon Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. has been filed by the assessee. fact of statement of Shri Kaml Jain, Shri Deepak Upadhaya and Shri Ranjeet Kumar Singh of having engaged in the providing accommodation entry bills, the claim of the assessee of sales promotion expenses of ₹82,56,879/- 6. As far as ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is the details of said expenses were submitted during original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and no addition for the same had been made in the said proceedings information received from the Investigatio fresh fact, the reopening cannot be said to have been based on change of opinion on same set of facts. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is also dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced 1963 on 29/12/2022. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 29/12/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. As far as ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is the details of said expenses were submitted during original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and no addition for the same had been made in the said proceedings, is concerned. In information received from the Investigation Wing which being a he reopening cannot be said to have been based on change of opinion on same set of facts. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is also dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, /2022. Sd/ VIKAS AWASTHY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 11 As far as ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is the details of said expenses were submitted during original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and no addition for the same had concerned. In view of n Wing which being a he reopening cannot be said to have been based on change of opinion on same set of facts. Accordingly, this ground of In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. ) of the ITAT Rules, Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai The Byke Hospitality Ltd. ITA No. 1954/M/2022 12 BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai