JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA,DELHI V. CIT(A), DELHI

ITA 5980/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jagdish Prasad Gupta, who was accused of facilitating bogus billing operations as an intermediary for Sanjay Jain's entities, which provided accommodation entries in exchange for commissions. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed a commission income of Rs. 3,50,894 based on incriminating evidence from seized documents and statements. Gupta contested the assessment, claiming compliance with tax regulations and denying receipt of any commission. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's findings, leading to Gupta's appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision partly upheld the commission income assessment but reduced the amount, considering the lack of specific deductions for expenditure.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716870 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries; Bogus
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 5980/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5980/Del/2024 Asstt. Yr.: 2020-21 Jagdish Prasad Gupta, A-1/134 New Kondli, Delhi-110096. PAN: AIQPG 7498 G Vs DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Nitin Bhatnagar, CA Department represented by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 5980/Del/2024 for A.Y. 2020-21 arises against Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi’s order date d 13.12.2024 in DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1071196140(1) [case No. 30/10734/2019-20], in proceedings u/s 153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned counsel vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in affirming assessment findings assessing the assessee’s alleged commission payments of Rs. 3,50,894/- in assessment order dated 13.03.2023, reading as under: Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 5980/Del/2024 “6. Ground Nos.1 to 5: This appeal arises from the assessment order passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case involves the appellant's alleged role as an intermediary in a bogus billing operation orchestrated by Sanjay Jain. Sanjay Jain, through entities such as Shri Laxmi Associates and Forever Exim India Pvt. Ltd., provided accommodation entries to various beneficiaries in exchange for commissions. Incriminating evidence seized during the search, including ledger accounts (A-19 and A-36), statements of Sanjay Jain, and tally data from Jain Enterprises, highlighted the appellant's active participation. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined that the appellant earned a commission of ₹3,50,894/-at a standard rate of 50 paise per entry for facilitating these transactions. The appellant, however, denied having earned any commission and relied on extracts from books of accounts, GST registration, and audited financials to assert compliance. 6.1 Ledger accounts (A-19 and A-36) clearly connect the appellant with Shri Laxmi Associates and Forever Exim India Pvt. Ltd., both controlled by Sanjay Jain. These entries substantiate the appellant's role in facilitating bogus billing. The modus operandi, as detailed in the AO's findings, involved intermediaries like the appellant connecting Sanjay Jain's entities with beneficiaries seeking accommodation entries. These intermediaries earned a commission of 50 paise per entry, a consistent trend across similar cases linked to Sanjay Jain. The tally data seized during the search corroborates this arrangement, with specific entries aligning with the appellant's involvement in routing transactions. Sanjay Jain's sworn statement explicitly confirmed the appellant's intermediary role and the promise of commission. This testimony holds significant evidentiary value and is consistent with the operational patterns observed in other cases under investigation. 6.2 The appellant's reliance on books of accounts, audited financials, and GST registration does not negate the overwhelming evidence. The appellant failed to provide a credible explanation for the ledger entries (A-19 and A- 36) or the incriminating tally data. These documents directly implicate him in the bogus billing operations. Merely denying receipt of commission, without any supporting evidence, does not absolve the appellant of his role. His partial acknowledgment of business interactions with Sanjay Jain further undermines his defense. Maintaining proper books or having GST registration does not negate the role of facilitating bogus billing, as corroborated by independent evidence from the search proceedings. The Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 5980/Del/2024 seized ledger accounts (A-19 and A-36) and tally data irrefutably establish the appellant's link to Sanjay Jain's concerns. The appellant's submission does not address the substantive evidence or provide any credible rebuttal. His reliance on procedural compliance and audited accounts does not counter the incriminating material or the operational details uncovered during the investigation. The appellant's active involvement as an intermediary in Sanjay Jain's bogus billing operations as has been conclusively established. The addition of ₹3,50,894/- as undisclosed commission income is substantiated by direct an circumstantial evidence. The appellant's grounds lack merit and are dismissed. 7. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” The assessee’s case accordingly is that the above commission income addition made by both the learned lower authorities is not sustainable in law since not supported by any cogent evidence; whatsoever. 3. The Revenue on the other hand places strong reliance on the CIT(A)’s above detailed findings, under challenge. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands. It is made clear that so far as the assessee’s stand seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities identical findings treating him as an accommodation entry provider in principle is concerned, we find no reason to disturb the same since based on corresponding overwhelming supportive evidence found during search; and, thereafter, in post search inquiries carried out in case of Mr. Sanjay Jain herein. The fact, however, remains that although the learned lower authorities have Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 5980/Del/2024 themselves assessed the assessee at a meager rate of 50 paise per entry as a facilitator of accommodation entries, the Revenue could hardly dispute that neither any expenditure deduction has been given nor any comparable case has been quoted; as the case may be. It is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum relief of Rs. 50,804/- representing corresponding expenditure on estimation bases to the assessee would be just and proper with the rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The impugned addition entry commission/ addition of Rs. 3,50,894/- is upheld to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow. No other ground or argument has been pressed before. 6. This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 5980/Del/2024 is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 18.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18.08.2025. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "