Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "F", MUMBAI
Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member and
Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member,
ITA Nos.7336/Mum/2016
Assessment Year: 2012-13
United Metal & Wire Industries, ITO, Ward-25(1)(5),
16, Latif Mansion, 56, Teli Galli C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhawan,
Andheri(East),
बनाम/ 4th Floor Bandra Kurla
Mumbai-400069 Vs. Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400051
( नधारती /Assessee) (राज व /Revenue)
P.A. No.AAAFU2811K
ITA Nos.7356/Mum/2016
Assessment Year: 2012-13
ITO, Ward-25(1)(5), United Metal & Wire
C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Industries,
4th Floor Bandra Kurla
बनाम/ 16, Latif Mansion, 56,
Complex, Bandra (East), Vs. Teli Galli
Mumbai-400051 Andheri(East),
Mumbai-400069
(राज व /Revenue) ( नधारती /Assessee)
P.A. No.AAAFU2811K
नधा रती क ओर से / Assessee by Shri J. P. Purohit
राज व क ओर से / Revenue by Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing :
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Usha Stud And Agriculatural Farms Pvt. ... on 3 March, 2005
11. Coming to loans taken from M/s Chandimata Management Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Max
Worth Project Pvt. Ltd.. The AO has recorded categorical finding in assessment order that
Shri Umesh Singh, director of the above company, in his statement recorded u/s 131 had
admitted that he was dummy director only working on the instruction of Shri Pravin
Aggarwal. He further admitted that these companies are just paper/shell companies used
for Jama-Kharchy/shell/entry business. Further, in his statement on oath u/s 132(4) of
theAct, dated 10/11/2012, Shri Pramod Ramdin Sharma has clearly admitted that M/s
Chandimata Management Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Max Worth Project Pvt. Ltd. were providing
accommodation entries. When all these evidences undoubtedly prove the fact that they
are entry providers, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in deleting the additions on technical ground
by stating that no additions could be made u/s 68 of the Act when the credit was brought
out from previous financial year. No doubt, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT
vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (301 ITR 384)(Del.) held that credit balance
appearing in the accounts of the assessee, does not pertain to the year under
consideration, no additions could be made u/s 68 of the Act. The ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court is squarely applicable in a case where the assessee has taken
loans from genuine parties which were verified in the previous financial year, but for
changed circumstances, the AO has taken different view to make additions u/s 68 of the
Act, then no additions could be made when the credit has been brought out from previous
12
United Metal & Wire Industries
financial year. In this case, it is undoubtedly prooved that those companies are hawala
operators involved in providing accommodation entries. When facts gathered during the
course of assessment proceedings clearly proves that these are accommodation entry
providers, the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in above case cannot be applied
to delete additions. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) was erred
in deleting additions made towards loans from M/s Chandimata Management Pvt. Ltd.
and M/s Max Worth Project Pvt. Ltd. Hence, we reverse findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and
sustained additions made towards loan taken from above two companies.
Section 69C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1