AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1080708559(1), dated 15.09.2025, involving proceedings under section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Delay of 2 days in filing the Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Coming to the Revenue’s pleadings in the instant appeal, it transpires during the course of hearing that it seeks to reverse learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s findings deleting the Assessing Officer’s addition of Rs.31,36,009/- made under section 69A of the Act in his assessment order dated 31.03.2024
Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the asssessee is a shell entity routing the accommodation entries from M/s. Himanshu Verma group; and, therefore, the impugned section 69A addition has been rightly made in its hands. This tribunal sees no merits in either party’s vehement stands against and in support of the CIT(A)/NFAC’s findings in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee has also failed to plead and prove the corresponding genuineness in the impugned transactions. Be that as it may, once it is prima facie established that this assessee is engaged in accommodation entry business, only a profit element @ 3% in the given facts is deemed to be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The learned Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to assess the assessee at the very rate qua the impugned alleged accommodation entry(ies) of Rs.31.36 lakhs in very terms.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.
This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed.