The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, adjudicated the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-31, under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 for Assessment Year 2012-13.

The case was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing pursuant to a search conducted on the Skylark Group, which revealed that several entities were engaged in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus transactions. It was alleged that the assessee had made non-genuine commission payments to a paper/shell entity, M/s Sharma Engineers & Consultants. Notice under Section 148 was issued and served on the assessee, followed by statutory notices under Section 142(1). The assessee filed the return belatedly and submitted replies during reassessment proceedings.

On completion of assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹9,41,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of bogus commission expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, holding that the payment was made to a shell entity controlled by entry operators and that the recipient had denied receipt of any genuine payment for services rendered.

The assessee also challenged the validity of the assessment on the ground of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2). The CIT(A) rejected this contention, observing that the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notice under Section 148 and filed the return at the fag end of the limitation period, thereby leaving no effective time for issuance of notice under Section 143(2). Applying the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria, it was held that a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong.

The Tribunal concurred with the findings of the CIT(A) and held that there was no justification for claiming bogus expenditure paid to a shell entity. It further held that the assessee, having failed to discharge its statutory obligation, could not invalidate the assessment on technical grounds. Accordingly, the addition under Section 68 and the validity of reassessment proceedings were upheld. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

Link to download the Order

https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1766570142_1766490751pGZSFp1TO.pdf