AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.09.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN No: ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1081171242(1) arising out of the order dated 24.02.2022 u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi, for AY: 2013-14.
On hearing both sides we find that on behalf of assesse ground No.1 which is raised to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the Act as allegedly there was non-application of mind and merely adopting investigation report the reopening have been done. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that in fact the assessing officer himself had earlier passed an assessment order u/s 153C of the Act on 26.11.2019 and without verifying any further fact reopening has been done merely on the basis of assumption and presumption without any iota of information or evidence suggesting any escapement of income.
Ld. DR has defended the same submitting that there is no bar in reopening u/s 147/148 once the assessment is completed u/s 153C of the Act.
We find that AO has made addition of Rs.2,90,00,000/- on account of alleged accommodation entries received from M/s Pranam Food Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act. Admittedly, consequent to search in entities related to Himashu Verma it was found that assesse company is related to him. During the investigation statement of Himanshu Verma was recorded u/s 132(4) and u/s 131 of the Act and he had allegedly stated that this company Ayaan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. along with various concern have been used as conduit for layering the accommodation entries from one company to another. Subsequently the search assessment for AY: 2012-13 to 2018-19 were completed u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act and no addition was made as company was held to be just instrument for providing accommodation entries. Thus, by the assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.11.2019 appellant company was held to be a paper company. The relevant findings of this assessment order dated 26.11.2019 are reproduced below:
“11.Accordingly, notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 24-09-2019 was issued to the assessee company, calling upon it to file a return of income verified in the prescribed form. The notice was duly served through speed post. In response to notice u/s 153C of the Act, assessee company has filed its return of income at NIL on 24-10-2019.
12.As discussed above, it is evident that Sh. Verma was actually doing all these entry providing activities and also enjoying the commission earned out of it. Creation of various entities was solely with a view to facilitate him in carrying out his activities. All these entities being merely on papers, their directors/partners/proprietors were only name lenders and there was no actual business activity in any such entity. Therefore, the entire income arising out of these activities shall be assessed in the hands of Sh. Verma and not in the hands of these paper entities.
12.1Assessee company is one of the 200 shell companies/entities which is being controlled by Himanshu Verma for providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission. This was confirmed by Mr. Himanshu Verma in his statement recorded during the course of search and also during assessment proceedings.
13.In view of the above it is established that the assessee company is only paper/non-existent company/shell company and is controlled and managed by Sh. Himanshu Verma. Sh. Himanshu Verma has been routing the unaccounted income pertaining to the different beneficiaries through various paper companies including assessee company and is providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries. Further, the other beneficiaries who have obtained accommodation entries through the assessee company if identified, the information shall be passed on to the AO of concerned beneficiaries for necessary action for relevant assessment years.
14.Assessed at NIL income u/s 153C of the Act. Give credit for prepaid taxes as per challans available on record. Issue demand notice and ITS 150 as part of order. Issue a copy of this order to the assessee.”
Now, as we see the assessment order dated 24.02.2022 same information was received through CRUI module insight that assesse is beneficiary of bogus accommodation entries from M/s Pranam Foods Pvt. Ltd. In para 8 assessing officer reproduces the reply of the assesse that as it is only a paper/non-existing shell company controlled and managed by Himanshu Verma as a company being used for routing unaccounted income pertaining to different beneficiaries.
Thus, the wholesome effect of aforesaid discussion is that tax authorities have opened the case of the assesse to examine alleged accommodation entries received while the assesse company has already been recognized by the department as merely shell company.
Our attention was also drawn to the effect that in the case of M/s Ansh Industries Pvt. Ltd. for the same assessment year Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order dated 25.09.2025 by which appeal of that assesse was allowed and the addition made by assessing officer were deleted. Now, this entity M/s Ansh Industries Pvt. Ltd. is also one of the alleged paper company managed and controlled by Himansh Verma. Similar information through CRUI module and insight portal was used to assert that M/s Ansh Industries Pvt. Ltd. was also a beneficiary of accommodation entries from M/s Pranam Foods Pvt. Ltd. to the extent of Rs.35,00,000/- and accordingly this addition u/s 68 was deleted by ld. CIT(A) in the hands of M/s Ansh Industries Pvt. Ltd. The department has challenged the same before this Tribunal and copy of order dated 09.02.2026 in the case of M/s Ansh Industries Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No. 43/Del/2026 has been placed on record wherein Coordinate Bench at Delhi has partly allowed the appeal of the revenue and only profit element @ 3% has been added with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent.
The aforesaid discussion brings us to a conclusion that the reopening of the assesse company preceded by the assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act when required to be reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act, the information and material over and above the one examined in concluded assessment u/s 153C could only have been relied. The fact that assesse was a shell company of Himanshu Verma and was used as a conduit for layering of the accommodation entries has been examined in earlier assessment u/s 153C of the Act and the information now relied is only an offshoot of that information and incriminating evidences arising out of a search in the Himanshu Verma group. Thus, in the absence of assessing officer examining the facts of the case of the assesse which have already been considered and solely relying the information received from CRUI module insight portal has done reopening and same shows complete non-application of mind.
Therefore, the ground No. 1 deserves to be sustained. As a consequence of aforesaid discussion the appeal of the assesse is allowed and the impugned additions stand deleted.