Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Vikram Commercial Ltd.,, Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 24 April, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES "E" : DELHI
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA.No.3213 & 3214/Del./2015
Assessment Years 2005-2006 & 2006-2007
Vikram Commercial Ltd.,
vs The Income Tax Officer,
39/1386, Chandni Chowk
Ward-17(3), C.R. Building,
Delhi - 110 006.
I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 2.
PAN AAACV0507E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Shri Praween Kumar, Director
For Assessee :
of Assessee-Company.
For Revenue : Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2018
ORDER
PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against the different orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi, dated 08th December, 2014, for the A.Ys. 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. 2
ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
2. We have heard Shri Praween Kumar, Director of the Assessee-Company and Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R. for the Revenue and perused the material on record.
3. Earlier, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed for default which have been restored by allowing the M.As of the assessee.
3.1. The facts of the case are that in A.Y. 2005-2006, assessee filed return of income at loss of Rs.82,130/- on 14th October, 2005. It was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In A.Y. 2006-2007, assessee filed return of income declaring loss of Rs.895/- on 30.11.2006 which was also processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from Addl. DIT (Investigation), New Delhi, that assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry of Rs.5 lakhs each in both the assessment years. The said accommodation entries are stated to have been provided by one Shri Tarun Goyal who provided accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through large 3 ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
number of shell managed by him. For A.Y. 2005-2006, accommodation entry is stated to have been provided by Volga Cresec (P) Ltd and in A.Y. 2006-2007 accommodation entry is stated to have been provided by Tejasvi Investment (P) Ltd. The assessment was reopened under section 148 of the I.T. Act on 27/28th March, 2012. The A.O. noted in the assessment orders that nobody attended nor any return have been filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The statutory notices issued under section 142(1) were also not complied with. Later on, assessee sought adjournment which was granted. The assessee filed reply at the Dak Counter along with acknowledgment of the ITR, copy of the balance-sheet, P & L A/c and bank statements for both assessment years under appeal. Thereafter, notices remained uncompiled with. Later on Counsel for Assessee appeared before A.O. and stated that assessee has not received any amount and no entry have been received from Volga Cresec (P) Ltd and from Tejasvi Investment (P) Ltd. The A.O. noted that assessee has filed copy of the ITR, balance-sheet and bank statement, but, no other details and 4 ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
narration of the bank statements have been submitted. So, the contention of assessee could not be verified and acceptable. The A.O, therefore, held that assessee received accommodation entry of Rs.5 lakhs each in both the assessment years under appeal and made the addition of Rs.5 lakhs each in both the assessment years.
4. The assessee challenged the additions and assessment orders before the Ld. CIT(A) and both the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the operative order in A.Y. 2006-2007 and followed the same in A.Y. 2005-2006. The Ld. CIT(A) in A.Y. 2006-2007 noted that assessee were directed to produce Managing Director of Tejasvi Investment (P) Ltd., from whom accommodation entry have been received and A.O. was directed to file remand report. The A.O. submitted the remand report which is reproduced in the appellate order in which the A.O. explained that notice under section 148 was issued to Principal Officer of the assessee- company on 27th March, 2012 and 142(1) on 10th July, 2012. 5
ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
The assessee made a request for adjournment on 24th July, 2012. Therefore, the contention of assessee is incorrect that no notice under section 148 have been served upon the assessee. it was also noted that assessee did not cooperate and did not comply with the order to produce Director of Tejasvi Investment (P) Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, noted that assessee has not made any compliance and no reply have been filed to contradict the remand report. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, held that notice under section 148 have been issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee did not produce sufficient evidence to explain the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction for the amounts received. Therefore, assessee failed to discharge onus upon it to prove genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The Ld. CIT(A), ultimately, dismissed both the appeals of the assessee.
5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. The assessee has filed the fresh grounds of appeals and in all the grounds in both 6 ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
the appeals, the assessee precisely challenged the orders of the authorities below on the ground that (i) no notice under section 143(2) have been served upon the assessee, (ii) no notice under section 148 have been served upon the assessee, (iii) objections of the assessee against the reopening of the assessment have not been disposed of by the authorities below, (iv) assessee has not received any accommodation entry of Rs.5 lakhs each in both the assessment years and (v) assessee filed all the documents, therefore, additions are unjustified. 5.1. In A.Y. 2005-2006, the assessee in the written submissions reiterated the same facts and the points raised in the grounds of appeal. The assessee also filed certified copy of the reply filed before A.O. obtained from the Department in which assessee filed copy of the bank statement which is part of the record of the A.O. to show that there is no entry of Rs.5 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee. the copy of the reply received under RTI Act has been filed in which Department has intimated to the assessee after verification of the record that no 7 ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
notice under section 143(2) have been issued or served upon assessee for both the assessment years under appeals. 5.2. In A.Y. 2006-2007, the assessee made similar contentions and it was explained that it was submitted before A.O. during A.Y. 2005-2006 that assessee has sold shares out of opening stock in trade of their company namely shares of Stainti Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., for which documentary evidences were filed which was accepted by the A.O. in the scrutiny assessment for A.Y. 2005-2006. Copy of the ITR of Tejasvi Investment (P) Ltd. for A.Y. 2005-2006 were also filed with copy of the bank statement wherein such sale proceeds were received into the bank account. The assessee booked the sale proceeds as income which have been shown for taxation in A.Y. 2005-2006 which have been accepted by A.O. It is stated that since the issue of service of notice under section 143(2) is legal issue, therefore, it may be admitted for hearing and in support of the contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Paramount Biotech Industries 8 ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
Ltd., dated 24th October, 2017 and Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Zaika Begum vs. ITO dated 09th January, 2017. The Director of the Assessee-Company stated that assessee filed return in response to notice under section 148 of the I.t. Act which have not been considered by the authorities below.
6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that assessee remained non-cooperative before the authorities below. Therefore, the matter could be remanded to the authorities below for verification of the facts stated by the Director of Assessee- Company.
7. On consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the A.O. The assessee has filed copy of the replies received from the A.O. which are replies filed before A.O. at the assessment stage. Since, it is certified by the A.O, therefore, it must be part of the record of the A.O. The reply of the assessee were supported by the bank statement. Director 9 ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
of the Assessee-Company submitted that assessee has not received any such accommodation entries in both the years. However, no factual finding have been given by the authorities below on the same despite the assessee denied receipt of such amount even before A.O. The assessee also denied receipt of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. However, the claim of assessee have been rejected merely considering the remand report of the A.O. in which it is noted that notice under section 148 have been issued on 27th March, 2012 and 142(1) have been issued on 10th July, 2012 and thereafter, assessee made request for adjournment on 24th July, 2012. It is not clarified in the remand report or in the findings of the authorities below whether notice issued in March, 2012 under section 148 have been served upon the assessee or not. Since, it is a jurisdictional notice, therefore, the authorities below shall have to record findings on the same. Further, the reply received by assessee under RTI Act reveal that no notice have been served upon the assessee under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. The Director of the Assessee-Company has specifically pleaded before us that 10 ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
returns are filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the matter requires factual verification from the record because such fact was not brought on record before the authorities below and the A.O. mentioned in the assessment orders that no return under section 148 have been filed by the assessee. Therefore, it also requires factual verification from the record. The assessee also pleaded that the objections filed in response to initiation of proceeding under section 148 have not been disposed of by the A.O. This was also not decided by the authorities below. Therefore, it requires factual verification because it would also have significant impact of passing of the assessment orders by the A.O. 7.1. Considering the above discussion and more specifically that assessee pleaded that no amounts in question have been received by assessee-company in its bank account requires reconsideration of the above issues at the level of the A.O. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore both the assessments to the 11 ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015 Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
file of A.O. with a direction to redecide all the above grounds of the assessee raised before the Tribunal in accordance with law by verifying the facts from the record. A.O. shall pass reasoned order on each and every objection of the assessee, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the A.O. and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments in the matter.
8. In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(O.P. KANT) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Delhi, Dated 24th April, 2018
VBP/-
Copy to
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. CIT(A) concerned
4. CIT concerned
5. D.R. ITAT 'E' Bench, Delhi
6. Guard File.
12
ITA.Nos.3213 & 3214/Del./2015
Vikram Commercial Limited Delhi.
// BY Order //
Assistant Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches :
Delhi.