Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Ram Prakash Bhatia, New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle- 05, New Delhi on 13 July, 2022
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'H', NEW DELHI
Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member
Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member
ITA No. 185/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12
ITA No. 186/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13
ITA No. 187/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14
ITA No. 188/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15
ITA No. 189/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16
Ram Prakash Bhatia, Vs ACIT,
WZ-77, 2nd Floor, Sri Nagar, Central Circle-05,
Shakur Basti, New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AERPB1045D
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 11.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022
ORDER
Per Bench:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 03.09.2019.
2. Since, the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order.
3. In ITA No. 185/Del/2020, following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
2 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020Ram Prakash Bhatia "The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal have passed an erroneous and unlawful order and confirmed the additions made on basis of incorrect and false details worked out at the assessment stage and further confirmed the same.
That the assessees have contested at the time of assessment. That the following account does not belong to the assessee.
Sr. Name of Concern Account Number Nam Transaction Name of Rate of Amount of
No. of Amount/ Proprietor Comm. Per Commission
Bank Accommodation lacs
Entries
Choudhary and Co. 1552320005555 HDFC 7970056 Pankaj 150 11955
1
Tripathi
15622560000162 HDFC 8565000 Pankaj 150 12847
2
Choudhary and Co. Tripathi
3 Rishabh Foods 431010200010964 Axis 120672834 Tarsem 150 181009
Kumar
Jain
4 Rishabh Foods 226010200007429 Axis 17798050 Varun 150 26697
Mehta
5 Rishabh Foods 1539002100049194 PNB 100289920 Tarsem 150 150434
Kumar
Jain
That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal have partly allowed (3) bank accounts and remaining bank accounts were confirmed. Which does not belong to the assessee or its associates, additions made on account these transactions may kindly be deleted the details are given here under.
Sr. Name of Concern Account Number Nam Transaction Name of Rate of Amount of
No. of Amount/ Proprietor Comm. Per Commission
Bank Accommodation lacs
Entries
1 Rishabh Foods 431010200010964 Axis 120672834 Mr. 150 181009
Tarsem
Kumar
Jain
2 Rishabh Foods 1539002100049194 PNB 100289920 Tarsem 150 150434
Kumar
jain
3 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020
Ram Prakash Bhatia
Name of the proprietors of the above mentioned accounts are wrongly ascertained at the time of assessment proceeding and even during the Appellate proceeding were not corrected. And therefore additions were confirmed which is against the facts and may kindly be deleted."
4. A survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on the assessee on 08.08.2014. During the survey, the statement of the assessee has been recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act wherein the assessee has confessed that he has been operating various proprietary concerns and firms which are used to give accommodation entries to various entities. The total amount of entries given are as under:
Sl. Assessment Year Amount of accommodation entries No. given
1. 2011-12 Rs.18,91,66,031
2. 2012-13 Rs.67,52,96,907
3. 2013-14 Rs.1,53,55,00,544
4. 2014-15 Rs.1,55,76,56,238
5. 2015-16 Rs.1,22,22,16,247
5. During the statement, the assessee has submitted the list of proprietary concerns and firms through which the accommodation entries have been given to various concerns which are as under:
Proprietary Concerns:
1. Delhi Traders
2. Jai Bharat Foods
3. Rishabh Foods
4. Mohit Trading
5. Chaudhary & Company (My wife's concern) 4 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia
6. Chaudhary Traders
7. Ganesh Trading Company
8. Rama Traders
9. Ram Prakash Enterprises
10. Ram Prakash Bhatia
11. Neha Enterprises
12. Prakash Food
13. Shri Bajrang Food
14. Punjab Food
15. Bajrang Corporation
16. Shiva Store
17. Pankaj Market Ltd.
6. The entire modus operandi has been explained by the assessee and also examined by the Income Tax Department, the details of which are part of the Assessment Order which are reproduced in this order.
7. The Revenue authorities issued notice u/s 148 which has been duly complied by the assessee. The assessee has disclosed commission of 0.15% i.e. @ Rs.150 per one lakh of accommodation entry provided. The revenue authorities have accepted the percentage of commission and determined the commission @ 0.15% on all the credits appearing in the bank accounts through which the entries have been routed multiple times. For the sake of ready reference, the Assessment Order containing the statement of the assessee, the entities involved and the modus operandi is reproduced below:
5 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020Ram Prakash Bhatia 6 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 7 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 8 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 9 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 10 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 11 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 12 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 13 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 14 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 15 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 16 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia 17 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia
8. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after getting the remand report from the Assessing Officer considered the accommodation entries and also the entries which have been taken twice and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to take appropriate remedial action after due verification in case of double addition on account of repeated entries.
9. The main grievance of the assessee before us are that the contra entries have not been considered and certain accounts which do not belong to the assessee have also been considered for calculation of the commission amount.
10. None appeared on behalf of the assessee.
11. The ld. DR has argued that the commission of 0.15% has been determined after taking into consideration, the multiple entries of the same amount routed through different accounts. It was argued that otherwise the normal commission rate determined by the Tribunals and High Courts in a number of cases ranged from 1.5% to 3% on the accommodation entries provided.
12. We have gone through the statement of the assessee recorded u/s 131(1A), the bank accounts operated by him which are in his own name and which are in the name of others. Keeping in view, the entirety of the accommodation entries, we do not hesitate to hold that the commission earned by the assessee by using the bank accounts in the name of other persons also liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee only as the assessee is the operator and the beneficiary of 18 ITA Nos. 185 to 189/Del/2020 Ram Prakash Bhatia these accounts and these accounts standing in the name of other persons have also been undoubtedly used for giving accommodation entries. Thus, the plea of the assessee that the commission cannot be charged pertaining to the accounts doesn't belong to the assessee is hereby dismissed. With regard to multiple routing of the amounts among various accounts, we are of the opinion that the percentage of commission charged @ 0.15% instead of the normal 1.5% takes care of such multiple routing of entries upto 10 times.
13. Keeping in view, the entire facts of the case, we hereby hold that the appeals of the assessee on this ground are liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/07/2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Anubhav Sharma) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated: 13/07/2022
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR