The
present appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, arose
from reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee company for
Assessment Year 2011-12, wherein the Assessing Officer treated the assessee as
a shell entity allegedly engaged in providing accommodation entries and made an
addition of commission income at 1.75%.
The
Tribunal noted that the original assessment for the relevant year, as well as
prior years, had already been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section
153C pursuant to a search conducted on the S.K. Jain Group, during which no
adverse material or incriminating evidence was found against the assessee. The
reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of Investigation
Wing inputs and an SFIO report, both of which pertained largely to periods
prior to the relevant assessment year.
It
was further observed that the alleged transactions attributed to the assessment
year under consideration were factually incorrect and that the Assessing
Officer failed to rebut the assessee’s detailed reconciliation demonstrating
that only a negligible portion of the transactions related to AY 2011-12.
Importantly, no independent verification or fresh tangible material was brought
on record to substantiate the allegation of accommodation entries.
The
Tribunal also took judicial notice of the fact that the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs, relying on the same SFIO report, had initiated winding-up proceedings
against the assessee before the Hon’ble NCLT, which were dismissed by a reasoned
order on merits. The dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble NCLAT,
and the appeal against the said order was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, thereby granting finality to the finding that the assessee could not be
characterized as a shell company.
In
addition, the consistent declaration of substantial profits and payment of
taxes by the assessee in subsequent assessment years further negated the
allegation of it being a mere accommodation entry provider.
In
view of the absence of fresh incriminating material, the impermissible change
of opinion, and the binding effect of judicial findings by higher forums, the
ITAT upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and held that the
reassessment and consequential addition were unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed and the addition was deleted.
Source Link- https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1767355617-swCHPB-1-TO.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment