Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Till date not a single director or anybody on the behalf of the company has appeared.
During the survey on BPSL on 27.12.2012 Sh Sanjay Singhal, CMD BPSL was asked about the purpose of making such huge advances. He could not give any explanation and admitted for disallowance of interest on these advances given. Thus, assesses himself admitted that no goods have been purchased from the above entities and amounts are still outstanding in the name these paper entities in the books of accounts of BPSL From the above discussion on modus operandi and financial credentials of above entities to which payments were made, it is concluded that payments were made to these entities for siphoning off funds from BPSL Payments made by BPSL to the above mentioned paper entities have finally been introduced in the entities of Bestech Group in form of bogus share capital/premium. Thus, prima facie from the discussed modus operandi, it appears that cash paid by Bestech group for taking bogus share Page | 5 Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2491/Del/2017) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs.DCIT, (ITA No. 2484 /Del/2017) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT,(ITA No. 2485/Del/2017) (Assessment Year 2012-13) capital/ premium accommodation entries through paper entries has been given equal amount of BPSL group. However, issue may be investigated further before finalizing the assessment proceedings.

From the above discussion on modus operandi and financial credentials of above entities to which payments were made, it is concluded that payments were made to these entities for siphoning off unds from BPSL. Payments made by BPSL to Page | 20 Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2491/Del/2017) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs.DCIT, (ITA No. 2484 /Del/2017) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT,(ITA No. 2485/Del/2017) (Assessment Year 2012-13) the above mentioned paper entities have finally been introduced in the entities of Bestech Group in form of bogus share capital/premium. Thus, prima facie from the discussed modus operandi, it appears that cash paid by Bestech group for taking bogus share capital/premium accommodation entries through paper entries has been given equal amount to BPSL group. However issue may be investigated further before finalizing the assessment proceedings. "

(c) Sh. Sanjay Singhal admitted to the disallowance of interest on the aforesaid alleged advances.

(d) The repayment of advances by the share applicant companies who had received advances from BSPL to BSPL only confirms the allegations about non genuineness.

(e) The nodus operandi and financial credentials of above entities to which payments were made, it is concluded that payments were made to these entities for siphoning off funds from BPSL. Payments made by BPSL to the above mentioned Page | 21 Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2491/Del/2017) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs.DCIT, (ITA No. 2484 /Del/2017) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT,(ITA No. 2485/Del/2017) (Assessment Year 2012-13) paper entities have finally been introduced in the entities of Bestech Group in form of bogus share capital/premium. Thus, prima facie from the discussed modus operandi, it is clear that cash paid by Bestech group for taking bogus share capital/premium accommodation entries through paper entries has been given equal amount to BPSL group.

(Authorities laying down this legal proposition have been given separately)  Further, source of the source is not the responsibility of the assessee. However in this case even the source of source also stands explained. The assessee received share capital from above 3 companies. These 3 companies received the corresponding amount from Bhushan. Thus even the source of source stands explained and confirmed.

(Authorities laying down this legal proposition have been given separately) (Synopsis for authorities given separately) Two The report of DDIT dt.17.04.15 is subsequent to asstt. order dt.13.06.14 therefore it was not available to the A.O. at the time of asstt., hence could not had been considered  The only reason and the basis of invoking sec.263 is the report of DDIT dt. 1 7.04.15 in the case of another assessee namely Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. (Bhushan) (CIT Pg.1-4) Page | 24 Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2491/Del/2017) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs.DCIT, (ITA No. 2484 /Del/2017) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT,(ITA No. 2485/Del/2017) (Assessment Year 2012-13)  The asstt. order u/s. 153A stood completed on 13.06.14  The report of DDIT was not in existence on the date of completion of asstt. on 13.06.14  Under these facts it cannot be said that the A.O. failed to take into consideration the DDIT report dated 17.04.2015 and contents thereof.  Hence section 263 cannot be invoked on the basis of material/ DDIT report which was not in existence at the time of completion of original asstt. Three  Even otherwise, there is nothing adverse in DDIT report dt.17.04.15 so as to invoke sec.263, rather the said report supports the case of assessee  The DDIT report dt.17.04.15 in the case of Bhushan (3rd party) is abstracted in asstt. order (CIT Pg.1-4)  As per conclusion of DDIT report, Bhushan made payments to these 3 companies (and other companies also) which are paper entities, and these companies, introduced the said amount as bogus share capital (CIT - Top Para Pg.4)  However these observation/finding are totally incorrect as per the facts mentioned in the report on the basis of which facts, the conclusion has been derived in the DDIT report, which stands clear from following as mentioned in DDIT report itself  Sh. Sanjay Singhal, Director of Bhushan stated in his statement that the said amount was given by Bhushan to these companies (CIT Pg.2)  DDIT stated that Bhushan gave the money to these companies for making bogus purchases, (CIT Pg.2)  However this allegation of DDIT is wrong. The director of Bhushan in his statement clearly stated that no goods have been purchased from these comp, against these amt. given, factually also no goods have been purchased and ultimately these companies have refunded the amount to Bhushan (CIT Pg.3)  Director of Bhushan did not admit the allegation of deptt., he is simply stated for disallowance of interest on amounts which have been used for giving to these companies (CIT Pg.3)  Thus, the factual contents of the report, clearly proves that Bhushan gave the amount to these companies and these companies, in turn, purchased the share of the assessee  The amount given by Bhushan to these companies was finally refunded by these companies to Bhushan (OTPg.7) Thus there is nothing adverse in the DDIT report also, even on merits Four  CIT, did not himself carry out any inquiries or verification to substantiate  No discrepancy was found either by the A.O. or by the CIT in any of the documents/information  The CIT, did not carry out any inquiries/verification himself  The report of DDIT, the only adverse document with CIT, clearly mentioned all the facts which clearly proved the source as well as the source of the source  Hence, in the absence of any further material/information/inquiry/verification by the CIT himself, there was no occasion for invoking sec.263 (Authorities laying down this legal proposition have been given separately) Page | 25 Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2491/Del/2017) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs.DCIT, (ITA No. 2484 /Del/2017) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT,(ITA No. 2485/Del/2017) (Assessment Year 2012-13) Five  The directions for framing the asstt. denovo is illegal  The show cause notice was issued for verification of receipt of share capital from 3 parties.