Sh. Krishan Lal Bansal, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 295/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77154 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Peak credit; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 295 TO 297/CHD/2013 A.Y. 1997-98 TO 1999-2000 SHRI KRISHAN LAL BANSAL, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R, HOUSE NO. 1219, WARD 4(3), SECTOR 34-C, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN : AAQPB6727K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 09.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM ALL THE THREE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGAR H DATED 03.01.2013 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THESE THREE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSE E ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. IN ITA NO. NO. 295/CHD/2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, WORTHY CIT (APPEALS) THROUGH HIS ORDER DATED 0 3.01.2013 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO, W HEREIN HE HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 7,82,000/-, ON FOLLOWING COU NTS: A. TREATING THE TRANSACTIONS WITH N.K. GARG GROUP OF PERSONS AS BOGUS SOLELY ON THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF SH. N .K. GARG AND MORESO WHEN NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINATION OF SH. N.K. GARG WAS PROVIDED. B. MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF R S. 7,82,000/- WHICH WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM LATE SH. VIDYA SAGAR AND THE SAME WER E REPAID THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES MUCH BEFORE THE STATEMENT OF SH. N.K. GARG WAS RECORDED AND THE SAID LENDER HAD ALREADY EXPIRED. 3. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSI TION OF THE CASE, WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WH EREIN HE HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 6,45,519/-WHICH REPRESENTED INTEREST PAID TO N.K. GARG GROUP OF PERSONS EVEN WHEN SAID INTEREST WAS A CTUALLY PAID THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. FURTHER LD. AO HAS ERRED IN N OT TAKING THE FIGURE OF INTEREST IN PEAK CREDITS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAS E RRONEOUSLY DISALLOWED THE SAME IN FULL.. 4. IN ITA NO. NOS. 296 & 297/CHD/2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL AS RAISED IN ITA NO. NO. 296/CHD/2013 READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, WORTHY CIT (APPEALS) THROUGH HIS ORDER DATED 03.01. 2013 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS O F SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. A O WHEREIN HE HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 5,50,350/-WHICH REPRESENT ED INTEREST PAID TO N.K. GARG GROUP OF PERSONS EVEN WHEN SAID INTEREST WAS A CTUALLY PAID THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. FURTHER LD. AO HAS ERRED IN N OT TAKING THE FIGURE OF INTEREST IN PEAK CREDITS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAS E RRONEOUSLY DISALLOWED THE SAME IN FULL. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION , DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 5. AS THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ALL THE APPEALS IS IDE NTICAL, THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ITA NO. NO. 295/CHD/2013 ARE CONSIDERED FO R ADJUDICATION. 6. THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN ST THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,82,000/-. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE IS SUE ARE THAT THE ORIGINAL 3 ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2005 HAD ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.20,35,870/- AS AGAINST RETURN ED INCOME OF RS. 117,816/-. THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,18,054/- WAS MAD E UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF ONE SHRI N.K.GARG AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST THEREON WAS ALSO ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS SHRI N.K.GARG HAD ADMITTE D TO GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 275 TO 278/CHD/2006 AND ITA NO . NOS. 423 TO 426/CHD/2009 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TO 1999-2000 AND 2001-02 VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DA TED 30.07.2010 HAD REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING O FFICER WITH DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION TO BE MADE IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST NON- ALLOWANCE OF THE LEGAL GROUND OF INITIATION OF RE-A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE PU NJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF PEAK CREDITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14.10.2011 AS TO WHY SUM OF RS. 7,82,0 000/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION, BE NOT ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. REPLY OF THE ASSESSE E DATED 18.10.2011 IS INCORPORATED UNDER PARA 3.3 AT PAGES 4 & 5 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE TRANSA CTIONS WERE ENTERED THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS AND MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI N.K.GARG THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES FOR OTHER PERSONS, ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN 4 RESPECT OF SHRI VIDYA SAGAR, IT WAS POINTED OUT THA T HE HAD ALREADY EXPIRED EVEN BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH STATEMENT OF SHRI N.K.GARG WAS RECORDED AND THEREFORE, NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED UPON THE SAME. THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF APPLYING PEAK OF CREDITS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 4 OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE TRAN SACTION BEING TRUE AND GENUINE OR THE SAME BEING BOGUS AND ONLY ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES, HAD ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL W HO IN-TURN HAD DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE SUBMISSION OF SHRI N.K.GARG BEFORE THE SETTLEME NT COMMISSION WAS THAT HE WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN HIS OWN NAME AND IN THE NAME OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, HAD BEEN ACCEPTED. THE REFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TRANSACTIONS WITH S HRI N.K.GARG AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE TRUE AND GENUINE, COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AND AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION, THE SAME WAS WORKED OUT ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PEAK CREDITS AND THE FIRST TWO ENTRIES BEING RS. 82,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI N.K.GARG ON 24.04.1996 AND RS. 7,00,000/- RECE IVED FROM SHRI VIDYA SAGAR TOTALING RS. 7,82,000/- WERE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 8. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAIN ST THE SAME. 9. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THO UGH SHRI N.K.GARG WAS FOUND TO BE ENGAGED IN GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENT RIES AND ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE ONE OF THE RECIPIENT BUT NO ADDITIO N COULD BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHRI VIDYA SAGA R WHO WAS THE FATHER OF SHRI N.K.GARG. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID RS. 7 LACS WAS REPAID BEFORE THE DATE OF S EARCH AND EVEN THE SAID 5 SHRI VIDYA SAGAR HAD EXPIRED BEFORE THE RECORDING O F STATEMENT OF SHRI N.K.GARG. 10. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2010 IN THE FIRST R OUND OF APPEAL AFTER DELIBERATING UPON THE ISSUE OF RE-OPENING UNDER SEC TION 147 OF THE ACT HAD DELIBERATED UPON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARAS 26 TO 30. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER: 26. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION IN TH E PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF ACCOMMODATION E NTRIES BEING PROVIDED BY SHRI N.K.GARG GROUP OF CASES AROSE BEF ORE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BALJIT TRIKHA IN ITA NO.203/CHANDI/2008 THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2008 HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES B EING INDULGED IN BY SHRI N.K.GARG & HIS CONCERNS AND TH E TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE (BALJIT TRIKHA) AND HAD REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WIT H DIRECTIONS. 27. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS SIMI LAR TO THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF BAL JIT TRIKHA(SUPRA). THE FIRST PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE US WAS NON-CONFRONTATION OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI N.K .GARG WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION. T HE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 9 AND 10 HELD AS UNDER :- 9. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS CASE, THE SINGULAR DISPUTE RELATES TO THE VERACITY OF RS.10,00,000/- RECEIVED BY WAY OF A BANK DRAFT FROM M/S ASISH LEASING & FINANCE LTD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT AS A LOAN ON WHICH INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO INCURRED. THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME REPRESENTED A BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDED BY THE SAID COMPANY WHICH WAS CONTROLLED BY ONE SHRI N.K.GARG. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,066,000/- TO PROCURE THE SAID BANK DRAFT FROM SHRI N.K.GARG. IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE CONFIRMATION FROM M/S ASISH LEASING & FINANCE LTD. AND ALSO THE DEBITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT EVEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIODS EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON SUCH LOAN. 6 NOW, THE ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED IS AS TO WHETHER THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OR NOT? THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT REAL AND THAT CONSIDERATION HAS FLOWN BACK FROM THE ASSESSEE TO ONE SHRI N.K.GARG (WHO CONTROLLED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S ASISH LEASING & FINANCE LTD. ) AGAINST THE LOANING OF SUCH AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT IS SO CONTENDED IS THE ALLEGED STATEMENT OF SHRI N.K.GARG RECORDED ON 20.5.2004 BY ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE VI, CHANDIGARH, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 32 TO 37. IN THE SAID STATEMENT, SAID SHRI N.K.GARG ADMITTED THAT VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED/CONTROLLED BY HIM THROUGH WHICH HE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS PARTIES. IT WAS ADMITTED THAT CASH WAS OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND IN RETURN, CHEQUES/DRAFTS WERE GIVEN TO THE CONCERNED PERSONS AND HE EARNED COMMISSION ON THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SO CALLED DISCLOSURE AND IT ARGUED THAT THE SAME IS BEREFT OF ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN TESTED UNDER CROSS EXAMINATION. 10. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY QUARREL WITH THE SAID LINE OF REASONING CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN PRINCIPLE. HOWEVER, THE MOOT QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS CAN THE ADDITION IN QUESTION DELETED MERELY ON THE ABOVE SCORE ? IN OUR VIEW, THE MERE ABSENCE OF SHRI N.K.GARG FOR CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE MADE THE SOLE BASIS TO DELETE THE ADDITION ALL TOGETHER, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT CANNOT BE LOST SIGHT THAT THE SAID SHRI N.K.GARG ADMITTED ON OATH BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES THAT HE WAS UNDERTAKING ACCOMMODATION BUSINESS. THE SUCH ADMISSION HAS THEREAFTER, RESULTED IN ASSESSMENTS IN HIS HANDS AS ALSO IN THE ENTITIES CONTROLLED BY HIM TO CARRY OUT SUCH ACCOMMODATION BUSINESS. MOREOVER, THE SAID ADMISSION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED UP BY SHRI N.K.GARG BY WAY OF APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, WHICH IS AN AUTHORITY INDEPENDENT OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. THE INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED A PRELIMINARY ORDER ADMITTING THE APPLICATION OF SHRI N.K.GARG IN TERMS OF SECTION 245D(1) OF THE ACT DATED 11.1.2007 WHICH IS ON RECORD. IN THE FACE OF SUCH MATERIAL, WE THEREFORE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MERELY BECAUSE SHRI N.K.GARG WAS NOT PRESENT FOR CROSS EXAMINATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE MADE SOLE BASIS TO DELETE THE ADDITION ALL TOGETHER. 7 28. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF BALJIT TRIKHA (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS TH E PLEA OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 29. THE SECOND PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO ALL HIS EARLIER CLAIMS THAT ADDITION, IF ANY, ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF PEAK CREDITS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SO APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SIMILAR CASH CREDITS FROM THE SAME CREDITOR WE RE ACCEPTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE TR ANSACTION BEING VERIFIABLE AND ENTERED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS O F ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT MERIT ANY ADDITIO N. THE TRIBUNAL IN BALJIT TRIKHA (SUPRA) VIDE PARA-11 HELD AS UNDER :- 11. ANOTHER REASON WHICH HAS WEIGHT WITH US TO INFER SO IS AS FOLLOWS. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT SAME AS A LOAN FROM M/S ASHISH LEASING & FINANCE LTD. A CONFIRMATION FROM THE LENDING COMPANY IN QUESTION HAS BEEN PRESSED INTO SERVICE WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE CASE CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE IS CONTRARY TO THE ABOVE DOCUMENTED POSITION. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MATERIAL WITH THE REVENUE IS OF A SUBSEQUENT DATE. WHEN THE MATERIAL IN THE SHAPE OF THE ADMISSION OF SHRI N.K.GARG BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY AT CHANDIGARH WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE CONFIRMATION FROM M/S ASHISH LEASING & FINANCE LTD. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH CONFIRMATION ISSUED BY M/S ASHISH LEASING & FINANCE LTD. WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADMISSION BY SHRI N.K.GARG BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES AT CHANDIGARH. THEREFORE, FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CONFIRMATION IN QUESTION, CANNOT CONSTITUTE A FOOLPROOF EVIDENCE SO AS TO NEGATE THE MATERIAL BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, UNLESS THE ASSESSEE REBUTS THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT FORTH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE INSISTENCE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CONCERNED PERSON BY ITSELF CANNOT WASH AWAY THE MATERIAL RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MATTERS REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI N.K.GARG AND HIS CONTROLLED ENTITIES HAS STILL NOT BEEN FINALIZED, BEING PENDING BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IN THE CASE OF SHRI N.K.GARG AND HIS CONTROLLED ENTITLES, IN OUR VIEW WOULD HAVE A RELEVANT BEARING ON THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TOO. MOREOVER, THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY OF THE BENCH WAS NOT AVAILABLE EITHER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) OR ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID MATERIAL HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING BEFORE 8 US. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS SO AS TO NEGATE THE RELEVANCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI N.K.GARG AND HIS CONTROLLED ENTITIES, SO FAR AS IT RELATES T O THEIR IMPACT ON THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS. CONSIDERED IN THE OVERALL LIGHT, WE ARE THEREFORE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ENTIRE MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE MATERIAL NOW BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE. OF COURSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE MATERIAL IN QUESTION AND TO REBUT THE SAME IF SO DESIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AFRESH AND MAKE AN ASSESSMENT DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 30. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS IDEN TICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN BALJIT TRIKHA (SUPRA). IN LINE WIT H THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN BALJIT TRIKHA (SUPRA ) WE R EMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION, IF ANY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IN LAW. A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE TH IRD ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 12. THE PERUSAL OF PARA 30 OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) REFLECTS THAT THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING O FFICER TO DECIDE THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIO NS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IN LAW. ADMITTEDLY SHRI N.K.GARG AND HIS FAMILY ME MBERS WERE INVOLVED IN GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THE ASSESSEE WA S ONE OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE SAID ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF RS. 82,000/- FROM SHRI N.K.GARG AND RS. 7,00,000/- FROM SHRI VIDYA SAGAR I.E. THE FATHE R OF SHRI N.K.GARG. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH HAS RAISED THE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 7,82,000/- BUT THE GRIEVANC E WAS ONLY AGAINST THE SUM OF RS. 7,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI VIDYA SAGA R. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM SHRI N.K.GARG WHO HAD ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT TO HAVE GIVEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN MAKING THE SAID ADDITION IN 9 THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SAI D SUM OF RS. 7,00,000/- WAS REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI VIDYA SAGAR EVEN BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND FURTHER THE SAID PERSON HAD ALREADY EXPI RED AND NO CONFIRMATION COULD BE FILED FROM THE SAID PERSON. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S, WHERE SHRI N.K.GARG WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN HIS OWN NAME AND ALSO IN THE NAME OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO DIFFERENT RECIPIENTS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE SUCH RECIPIENT. THE SAID SUM OF R S. 7,00,000/- WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE FATHER OF SH RI N.K.GARG AND ONCE A PERSON AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE FOUND TO BE EN GAGED IN GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THEN ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. FURTHER THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AND THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REFLECT THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED BENEFIT OF OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 30,16 ,097/- AND ADDITION OF RS.7,82,000/- ONLY WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE F IND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 13. THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAI NST THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,45,519/- WHICH REPRESENTED INTEREST PAID TO N .K.GROUP OF PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD D EBITED SUM OF RS. 645,519/- AS INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF INT EREST PAID TO SHRI N.K.GARG AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. SINCE THE LOANS/C REDITS ON WHICH THE INTEREST WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID WERE HELD TO BE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT NO SUCH EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON INTEREST HAD ACTUALLY BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND A SUM OF RS. 645,519/- REPRESENTED BOGUS EXPENDITURE. 14. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 10 15. IN VIEW OF OUR UPHOLDING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 645,519/- AS BOGUS EXPENDITURE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, DISMISSED. 16. IN ITA NOS.. 296 AND 297/CHD/2013 RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND 1999-2000, THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VIDE GROUND NO. 2 AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 550,350/- AND RS. RS. 58,884/- RESPECTIVELY CLAIMED AS INTEREST PAID TO N.K.GARG G ROUP OF PERSONS. 17. THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 2 BY THE ASSES SEE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 3 IN ITA NO. 295/C HD/2013 AND OUR DECISION IN ITA NO. 295/CHD/2013 SHALL APPLY MUTATI S-MUTANDIS TO ITA NOS. 296 AND 297/CHD/2013. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO . 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. GROUND NOS. 1 & 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 296 AND 297/CHD/2013 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND ARE DISMISSE D. 19. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JUNE, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH JUNE, 2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.