Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Radhey Shyam, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward- 63(3), New Delhi on 9 July, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES "SMC" : DELHI
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA.No.7387/Del./2017
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Shri Radhey Shyam, Prop.
M/s. Radhey Shyam & Co. The Income Tax Officer,
5645, Basti Harphool Singh, vs. Ward-63(3),
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-006. New Delhi.
PAN ABHPS9513Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Shri Ved Jain, Advocate
For Assessee : Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. &
Shri Rishabh Jain, C.A.
For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing : 05.07.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018
ORDER
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi, dated 17.10.2017, for the A.Y. 2007-2008, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and addition of Rs.14,28,895/- on account of bogus purchases.
2ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that return of income declaring an income of Rs.1,36,180/- was filed which was processed u/s 143(1) of 1 Tax Act. Later on. information was received from ACIT, Central Circle, through the O/o. CIT was provided to the A.O, the list of parties to whom the bogus purchases/accommodation entries provided by Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Vishesh Gupta, Shri Navneet Jain and Shri Vaibhav Jain was appearing. After going through the complete list and identifying the parties and after recording the reasons that the income of Rs.14,28,895/- has escaped assessment in the case of assessee, the case was reopened. The assessee did not produce books of account. The A.O. after collecting all material on record, called for the explanation of assessee in respect of accommodation entries received from the above persons. The A.O. issued show cause notice to the assessee that accommodation entries have been received by assessee through the above persons from Om Agencies, Vishy Trading Co. and Shree Shyam Trading Co. of Rs.14,28,895/- which are bogus purchases. The assessee explained before A.O. that assessee 3 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
made genuinene purchases from these parties and that similar addition was made in A.Y. 2006-2007 in which Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition of 20% of the purchases. The A.O. however, did not accept the contention of assessee and made the addition of Rs.14,28,895/- on account of bogus purchases obtained by the assessee through the above four persons namely Shri Rakesh Gupta and others.
3. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition on merit before the Ld. CIT(A).
The submissions of the assessee were reproduced in the appellate order. It was also contended that similar issues have been decided by ITAT in preceding A.Y. 2006-2007 and reopening have been quashed and addition on merit have been deleted. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of assessee and also did not follow the order of the Tribunal.
The appeal of assessee has been dismissed.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the issue is covered by the Order of ITAT, Delhi 4 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
Bench in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2006-2007 in ITA.No.1429/Del./2015 dated 30.11.2015 whereby the reopening of the assessment have been quashed and addition on merit have been deleted. The order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under :
"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "SMC-1" NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no. 1429/Del/2015 Asstt. Yrs: 2006-07 Radhey Shyam & Co., Vs. Income-tax Officer, Prop. Radhey shyam, Ward-39(3), New Delhi. 5645, Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
PAN: ABHPS 9513 Q
( Appellant ) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Ved Jain FCA
Respondent by : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 13/11/2015.
Date of order : 30/11/2015.
ORDER
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dated 15/12/2014, passed u/s 144 read with section 147 of the income- tax Act, 1961, upholding the reassessment order passed u/s 148 and on merits 5 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
the CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 94,771/- as against Rs. 47,73,855/-, made by the AO.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return declaring an income of Rs. 1,24,182/-, which was completed u/s 143(3). Subsequently, the assessment was reopened on the allegation that the assessee had made bogus purchases. The assessment was completed by the AO by making addition of Rs. 4,73,855/-, treating the entire purchases made by the assessee from M/s Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Company, to be the accommodation entries.
3. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment, but reduced the addition to 20% of the purchases, amounting to Rs. 94,771/-.
4. The issues involved in various grounds taken by the assessee relate to the validity of the reassessment as well as the sustenance of the addition to the extent of 20%. So far as the validity of the assessment is concerned, I heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. I noted that the assessment has been reopened by the AO by recording the following reasons:
"Reasons for the belief that the income has escaped assessment in the case of M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. for the assessment year 2006-07 A letter bearing F.No. AddI.CIT/(Hq)/(Coord.)/ Accommodation entry/2012-13/15016 dated 26-03-2013 6 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
was received from the Office of the Chief Commissioner of I. Tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi therein forwarding letter bearing F. No. CIT(C)-1I/2012-13/3898 dated 19.03.2013 received from the Commissioner of I. Tax, Central-II, New Delhi along with a CD containing the details of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Vaibhav Jain and directing this office to take necessary action as per section 148 in respect of entries pertaining to A.Y. 2006- 07, which is time barring on 31.03.2013.
The information provided by the CIT, Central-II, New Delhi vide his letter dated 19.03.2013 reads as under :-
"Kindly find enclosed herewith letter dated 13.03.2013 of ACIT, Central Circle-10 duly forwarded by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-IV, along with its enclosures on the subject mentioned above.
2. The assessment of search cases of Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Vishesh Gupta, Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain are under process with the ACIT, Central Circle-10. During the assessment proceedings u/s 153A in the aforesaid cases, details regarding accommodation entries given by the above entry providers has been obtained by the A.D. 7 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
3. The list of accommodation entry recipients has been obtained from Sh. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Vishesh Gupta. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as Annexure A, duly signed by Sh. Vishesh Gupta.
The list gives the name of the firm which has provided the accommodation entry along with the name and address of the recipients of accommodation entry.
4. Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain has provided accommodation entry through thirty-seven paper entities. The list of the firms giving accommodation entry is enclosed as annexure-B. The list of accommodation entry recipients, has been obtained from Sh. Naveneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain. It does not give year wise bifurcation. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as annexure-C, duly signed by Sh. Vaibhav Jain. Thus, the firms mention in the list 'B' have provided accommodation entries to the firms mentioned in list 'C'.
5. The soft copy of the information in respect to annexure A, B & C is also enclosed.
6. The information of accommodation entry includes A.Y. 2006-07 also, which is a time barring year for taking action u/s 148.8
ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
7. This information is forwarded to you for early dissemination to various field offices in Delhi (Soft copy also enclosed)."
On examining the list of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain pertaining to A.Y. 2006- 07, it is noticed that the following accommodation entries have been taken by the assessee namely M/s Radhay Shyam & Co.:-
Sl. Accommodation entry Name of party to whom Amount of No. provided by Accommodation entry is Accommodation entry provided
1. Shree Bankey Bihari Trading M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. Rs. 4,73,855/-
Co.
Total amount of entries= Rs. 4,73,855/-
Since Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Valbhav Jain during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of I. Tax Act have admitted that they have given accommodation entries to the parties whose lists have been provided by them to the ACIT, Central Circle-10, New Delhi, therefore, it is fair to conclude that M/s Radhay Shyam & Co., whose name is appearing in the said list, has taken accommodation entries from Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain pertaining to AY. 2006-
07. 9 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax of M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. amounting to Rs. 4,73,855/- for the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to AY. 2006-07 has escaped assessment and it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act.
Proposal in the prescribed form for the AY. 2006-07 (F. Y. 2005-06) is submitted herewith for kind consideration and necessary approval u/s 151(2) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 as the same is getting barred by limitation on 31/3/2013.
If approved, notice u/s 148 of the act may be issued.
Sd/-
28.3.2013 (Pawan Kumar Vashist) Income Tax Officer Ward-39(3), New Delhi.
5. I found that the issue regarding the validity of the reassessment is duly covered by the decision of this Bench in the case of Unique Metal Industries Vs. ITO in ITA no. 1372/Del/2015 in which this Tribunal vide its order dated 28-1-2015 quashed the reassessment. I noted that in that case also similar type of reasons were recorded, as reproduced below:
"Reasons for the belief that the income has escaped assessment in the case of M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. for the assessment year 2006-07 10 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
A letter bearing F.No. AddI.CIT/(Hq)/(Coord.)/ Accommodation entry/2012-13/15016 dated 26-03-2013 was received from the Office of the Chief Commissioner of I. Tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi therein forwarding letter bearing F. No. CIT(C)-1I/2012-13/3898 dated 19.03.2013 received from the Commissioner of I. Tax, Central-II, New Delhi along with a CD containing the details of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Vaibhav Jain and directing this office to take necessary action as per section 148 in respect of entries pertaining to A.Y. 2006- 07, which is time barring on 31.03.2013.
The information provided by the CIT, Central-II, New Delhi vide his letter dated 19.03.2013 reads as under :-
"Kindly find enclosed herewith letter dated 13.03.2013 of ACIT, Central Circle-10 duly forwarded by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-IV, along with its enclosures on the subject mentioned above.
2. The assessment of search cases of Sh. Rakesh gupta, Sh. Vishesh Gupta, Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain are under process with the ACIT, Central Circle-10. During the assessment proceedings u/s 153A in the aforesaid cases, details regarding accommodation entries 11 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
given by the above entry providers has been obtained by the A.O.
3. The list of accommodation entry recipients has been obtained from Sh. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Vishesh Gupta. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as Annexure A, duly signed by Sh. Vishesh Gupta. The list gives the name of the firm which has provided the accommodation entry along with the name and address of the recipients of accommodation entry.
4. Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain has provided accommodation entry through thirty-seven paper entities. The list of the firms giving accommodation entry is enclosed as annexure-B. The list of accommodation entry recipients, has been obtained from Sh. Naveneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain. It does not give year wise bifurcation. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as annexure-C, duly signed by Sh. Vaibhav Jain. Thus, the firms mention in the list 'B' have provided accommodation entries to the firms mentioned in list 'C'.
5. The soft copy of the information in respect to annexure A, B & C is also enclosed.
6. The information of accommodation entry includes A.Y. 2006-07 also, which is a time barring year for taking action u/s 148.12
ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
7. This information is forwarded to you for early dissemination to various field offices in Delhi (Soft copy also enclosed)."
On examining the list of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain pertaining to A.Y. 2006- 07, it is noticed that the following accommodation entries have been taken by the assessee namely M/s Unique Metal Industries:-
Sl. Accommodation entry Name of party to whom Amount of No. provided by Accommodation entry is Accommodation entry provided
1. Shree Shyam Trading Co. M/s Unique Metal Rs. 2,44,399/-
Industries
2. Vishnu Trading Co. M/s Unique Metal Rs. 8,12,542/-
Industries
3. Shree Bankey Bihari M/s Unique Metal Rs. 3,28,368/-
Industries Total amount of entries= Rs. 13,85,309/-
Since Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Valbhav Jain during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of I. Tax Act have admitted that they have given accommodation entries to the parties whose lists have been provided by them to the ACIT, Central Circle-10, New Delhi, therefore, it is fair to conclude that M/s Radhay Shyam & Co., whose name is appearing in the said list, has taken accommodation entries from Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh.
13ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain pertaining to AY. 2006-
07. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax of M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. amounting to Rs. 4,73,855/- for the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to AY. 2006-07 has escaped assessment and it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act.
Proposal in the prescribed form for the AY. 2006-07 (F. Y. 2005-06) is submitted herewith for kind consideration and necessary approval u/s 151(2) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 as the same is getting barred by limitation on 31/3/2013.
If approved, notice u/s 148 of the act may be issued.
Sd/-
28.3.2013 (Pawan Kumar Vashist) Income Tax Officer Ward-39(3), New Delhi.
6. Since in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra), similar reasons were recorded, as have been recorded in the case of the assessee and the party from which the assessee made the purchases were Shri Bankey Bihari Trading Co., which is a party in the case of the assessee, therefore, respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal dated 28- 1-2015 in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra), I quash the reassessment.
14ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
7. Now coming to the merit about the sustenance of the addition by the CIT(A) @ 20% of the purchases made by the assessee from Shri Bankey Bihari Trading Co., after hearing the rival submissions and going through the order of the Tribunal, I noted that this Tribunal vide its order dated 28-10-2015 in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra), deleted similar addition by observing in para 27 as under:
"27. As regards the addition of 20% sustained by the learned CIT(A) I am of the view that since purchases are not bogus the addition on this account cannot be sustained. Even otherwise the addition of 20% on the facts and circumstances is apparently too high. The learned CIT(A) having held that tax has to be levied on real income and the profit cannot be ascertained without deducting the cost of purchases from the sales as otherwise it amount to levy of tax on gross receipt, she ought to have applied' profit rate in this nature of trade. Estimating profit at the rate of 20% by taking into consideration the or visions of section 40A(3) will not lead to determination of correct real income. Section 40A(3) is meant for a different purpose when the assessee has made purchases in cash. This provision cannot be applied in such cases. Once the purchases are held to be bogus then the trading results declared by the assessee cannot be accepted and right course in such case is to reject books of accounts and profit has to be estimated by applying a comparative profit 15 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
rate in the same trade. Though there can be a little guess work in estimating profit rate but such profit rate cannot be punitive.
8. Ld. DR even though vehemently relied on the order of CIT(A) as well as that of the AO, but could not bring to our knowledge any cogent material or evidence which may compel us not to follow the decision of this Bench in ITA no. 1372/Del/2015 (supra). I, therefore, respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra), delete the addition as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs.94,771/-.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 30/11/2015.
Sd/-
(P.K. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30/11/2015."
4.1. He has submitted that the Tribunal in this case followed its earlier order in the case of Unique Metal Industries vs. ITO in ITA.No.1372/Del./2015 dated 28.10.2015. He has submitted that reasons are same for initiation of the re-
assessment proceedings as well as addition is similar for making alleged bogus purchases from the same four persons 16 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
viz., Shri Rakesh Gupta and others in preceding assessment year. Therefore, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case as well as in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra). Copy of the reasons for assessment year under appeal i.e., A.Y. 2007-2008 are filed at page-16 and 17 of the paper book. The same is reads as under :
"Reasons for the belief that the income has escaped assessment in the case of M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. for the assessment year 2007-08.
A letter bearing F.No. AddI.CIT/(Hq)/(Coord.)/ Accommodation entry/2012-13/15016 dated 26-03-2013 was received from the Office of the Chief Commissioner of I. Tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi therein forwarding letter bearing F. No. CIT(C)-1I/2012-13/3898 dated 19.03.2013 received from the Commissioner of I. Tax, Central-II, New Delhi along with a CD containing the details of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Vaibhav Jain in the shape of bogus purchases and directing this office to take necessary action as per section 148 in respect of entries pertaining to A.Y 2006-07, which were going to be 17 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
barred by limitation on 31.03.2013. The Information provided by the CIT, Central-II, New Delhi vide his letter dated 19.03.2013 reads as under :
"Kindly find enclosed herewith letter dated 13.03.2013 of ACIT, Central Circle-10 duly forwarded by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-IV, along with its enclosures on the subject mentioned above.
2. The assessment of search cases of Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Vishesh Gupta, Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain are under process with the ACIT, Central Circle-10. During the assessment proceedings u/s 153A in the aforesaid cases, details regarding accommodation entries given by the above entry providers has been obtained by the A.O.
3. The list of accommodation entry recipients has been obtained from Sh. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Vishesh Gupta. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as Annexure A, duly signed by Sh. Vishesh Gupta. The list gives the name of the firm which has provided the accommodation entry along with the name and address of the recipients of accommodation entry.
4. Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain has provided accommodation entry through thirty-seven paper entities.18
ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
The list of the firms giving accommodation entry is enclosed as annexure-B. The list of accommodation entry recipients, has been obtained from Sh. Naveneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain. It does not give year wise bifurcation. Hard copy of the list is enclosed as annexure-C, duly signed by Sh. Vaibhav Jain. Thus, the firms mention in the list 'B' have provided accommodation entries to the firms mentioned in list 'C'.
5. The soft copy of the information in respect to annexure A, B & C is also enclosed.
6. The information of accommodation entry includes A.Y. 2006-07 also, which is a time barring year for taking action u/s 148.
7. This information is forwarded to you for early dissemination to various field offices in Delhi (Soft copy also enclosed)."
It is evident from the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-10, New Delhi on 28.03.2013 that Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Jaibhav Jain during the course of search proceedings, in post search proceedings and in assessment proceedings u/s 153A of I. Tax Act admitted that they have given accommodation envies to the parties whose lists have been provided by them 19 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
to the ACIT, Central Circle-10, New Delhi. Therefore, the assessment of the Firms/concerns/ individuals for A.Y. 2006-07, whose names were appearing in the said list of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta, Sh. Navneet Jam & Sh. Vaibhav Jain and whose territorial jurisdiction was lying with this Ward, were reopened u/s. 147 of I. Tax Act and notices u/s. 148 of I. Tax Act were issued.
After making necessary verification and disposing off the objections filed by most of the assessees' against reopeing of their cases u/s. 147 of I Tax Act and after considering the replies/details/documents furnished by the assessees' in their respective cases, including the case of the assessee, it was held that no satisfactory explanation about the sources of bogus purchases made from Sh. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Vishesh Gupta could be furnished. Hence, keeping in view the provisions of section 69C of I. Tax Act read with section 4, 5 and 14 of I. Tax Act, the amount of such bogus purchases were treated as deemed income of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07.
Since the accommodation entries provided by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain in the shape of bogus purchases were treated 20 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
as deemed income of the assessees' for A Y. 2006-07 and in the said list, names of the concerns/persons who have taken accommodation entries in the shape of bogus purchases in subsequent assessment years were also appearing, including A.Y.2007-08. therefore this office is of the firm view that these cases also need to be reopened u/s 147 of I. Tax Act.
Accordingly, on examining the list of accommodation entries provided by Sh Rakesh Gupta & Sh Vishesh Gupta and Sh. Navneet Jain &. Sh. Vaibhav Jain pertaining to A.Y 2007-08, it is noticed that the following accommodation entries have been taken by the assessee namely M/s Radhey Shyam & Co. in A.Y. 2007-08 and whose territorial jurisdiction lies with this Ward :-
Sl. Accommodation Name of party to whom Amount of No. entry provided by Accommodation entry is Accommodation provided entry
1. Vishuu Trading M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. Rs. 4,28,115/-
Co.
2. OM Agencies M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. Rs. 1,95,993/-
3. Shree Shyam M/s Radhay Shyam & Co. Rs. 8,04,787/-
Trading Co.
Total amount of entries = Rs.14,28,895/-
Also the details of income tax Return filed by M/s Radhey Shyam & Co for A.Y. 2007-08 processing done u/s 143(1) of I. Tax Act thereof were tried to be taken out 21 ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
from ITD System. However, the same were not found available there. Thus, as per our record, the assessee has not filed any return of income for A.Y. 2007-08. Further, no scrutiny assessment was done in A.Y. 2007-08. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.14,25,895/- for the F,Y. 2006-07 relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 has escaped assessment. Besides this, any other income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment, which will come to the notice of this office during assessment proceedings shall also be added back. Thus, I have reasons to believe that it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act.
Proposal in the prescribed form for the AY. 2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07) is submitted herewith for kind consideration and necessary approval u/s 151(2) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 as the same is getting barred by limitation on 31/3/2013.
If approved, notice u/s. 148 of the act may be issued.
Sd/-
13.3.--
(Pawan Kumar Vashist) Income Tax Officer Ward-39(3), New Delhi.
22ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
4.2. He has also relied upon several other orders of the Tribunal in the case of other assessees, in which, identical addition have been deleted.
5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
6. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Order of the Tribunal in the case of same assessee for preceding A.Y. 2006-2007 (supra). The Order of the Tribunal is reproduced above as well as reasons for reopening of the assessment for assessment year under appeal are also reproduced above. In the reasons recorded for A.Y. 2006-2007 the same letter received by the A.O. from the Income Tax Department are referred which are same as have been referred in the reasons for A.Y. 2007-2008. The persons are same through whom the accommodation entries of bogus purchases have been provided in A.Y. 2006-2007 as well as in A.Y. 2007- 2008 in appeal. Therefore, facts are same and identical.
23ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is bound to follow the Order of the Tribunal for preceding A.Y. 2006-2007 to quash reopening of the assessment as well as to delete the addition on merit. Both the issues are, therefore, covered by the Order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-2007 (supra).
Following the same, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the I.T. Act as well as delete the addition on merit.
7. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/-
(BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dt. 09th July, 2018.
VBP/-
Copy to
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. CIT(A) concerned
4. CIT concerned
5. D.R. ITAT 'SMC' Bench, Delhi
6. Guard File.
24ITA.No.7387/Del./2017 Shri Radhey Shyam, New Delhi.
// BY Order // Assistant Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches :
Delhi.