Case Number: ITA 1766/DEL/2020
Appellant: Pradeep Goel & Son (HUF), New Delhi
Respondent: ITO WARD – 35(8), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Case Filed On: 2020-10-23
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2021-08-04
Pronounced On: 2021-08-04
This appeal, numbered ITA 1766/DEL/2020, was filed by Pradeep Goel & Son (HUF) against the order dated 31st August 2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant contested the reopening of the assessment and the addition of accommodation entries by the Assessing Officer (AO).
The case was heard by the Delhi “SMC” Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on August 4, 2021, with the order pronounced on the same day. The bench comprised Accountant Member Shri R.K. Panda.
The primary grounds of appeal were:
Pradeep Goel & Son (HUF) filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on March 30, 2013, declaring an income of Rs.1,79,440. The case was reopened for assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after recording reasons. Despite notices under Sections 148 and 142(1), there was no response from the assessee, leading to an ex parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act.
During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that a survey under Section 133A was carried out in the cases of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Shri Sandeep Gupta, and Shri Anuj Kumar Gupta on November 30, 2018. They admitted to providing accommodation entries through their paper/dummy concerns. The assessee was identified as a beneficiary of M/s Gayatri Maa Enterprises, having taken accommodation entries amounting to Rs.12,68,590 during the year. In the absence of any details filed by the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.12,68,590 under Section 68 and determined the total income at Rs.14,48,030.
The appellant argued that the AO had insufficient grounds to reopen the assessment based solely on the information of accommodation entries. The appellant further claimed that proper procedures for serving notices were not followed, rendering the assessment proceedings invalid. Additionally, the appellant contested the addition of Rs.12,68,590, stating that the deposits were not unexplained.
The ITAT examined the grounds of appeal and the evidence presented:
The tribunal found that the AO had the authority to verify the source of accommodation entries, and thus, the reopening of the case was justified. The grounds of appeal related to the legality of the reopening and the service of notices were dismissed.
Due to non-appearance before the AO, the addition of Rs.12,68,590 was made under Section 68. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) either, leading to the confirmation of the addition. However, considering the interest of justice, the tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The grounds related to the addition were allowed for statistical purposes.
The appeal by Pradeep Goel & Son (HUF) was partly allowed. The tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment but directed the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity to the assessee to explain the accommodation entries. The appeal regarding the addition was allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal’s order was pronounced in the open court on August 4, 2021, by Accountant Member Shri R.K. Panda.
Member: Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member
Copy forwarded to:
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform