AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
These appeals are preferred by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi, (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of the assessment orders u/s 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the appeal is as under:
| ITA No. & AY | Ld. FAA who passed the appellate order | Appeal No. & Date of order of the Ld. FAA | AO who passed the assessment order & Date of order |
| 2884/D/23 AY 2018-19 | CIT(A)-27, NewDelhi | CIT(A), Delhi-27/10304/2019-20 | ACIT, CC-18 Dated 29.12.2019 |
| 3017/D/23 AY 2015-16 | CIT(A)-27, Delhi | DIN & Document No.: ITBA/APL/S/91/2023-24/1055205088(1) | ACIT, CC-18 Dated 29.12.2019 |
That the assesses is one of the Directors of the Company, namely M/s Laxmi Remote (India) Pvt. Ltd. whichwasincorporated on 04/10/2000 and is engaged in manufacturing ofremote controls and set top boxes for various companies. It is alsoengaged in manufacturing Universal Remote Controls which are soldunder the brand name 'Earthma'. All the persons/entities coveredduring the course of search and consequential surveys are collectively referred hereinafter as "Laxmi Remote group". Search &Seizure Operation u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 21.08.2017 in the case of Laxmi RemoteGroup including the assessee company as allegedly the group had received accommodation entries through entry operator/facilitator like AashishBegwani& Associates, mainly in the form of unsecured loan over the period from F.Y 2012-13 to F.Y. 2016-17.
On looking to the fact and circumstances of the search, the company had decided to file a Petition before the SettlementCommission on 26.12.2019 and in SOF, details of year wise additional income offered by the applicant for AY 2012-13 to 2018-19, of Rs. 34, 07,00,000/- was disclosed.
Allegedly during the search it was also found that the Company is maintaining parallel books of accounts for cash transaction and it was also alleged that the Directors and the Company had only one source of income, i.e., income from the business which is run by the company, therefore, all the accommodation entries along with their interest reflecting in the personal books of Director and jewelry found and seized during the search was part of the disclosure in the Petition filed before the Settlement Commission and the same had also been accepted by the Interim Board for Settlement Commission.Since the amount of addition made by the A.O. has already been offered for taxation and the assesses has already paid the due tax thereon while filing the Petition before the Settlement Commission, and on this basis the learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted the addition made by the A.O in AY 2015-16 while sustained addition of Rs. 1,80,820/= on account of alleged unexplained jewelry in AY 2018-19. Thus both assesse and revenue are in appeal.
However, after considering the Order of Interim Board for Settlement,we find that the Board for Settlement has taken into account the various issues of possible additions on account of suppression of profits, accommodation entries, cash, jewelry, unaccounted stock, large expenses and an amount of Rs. 6,25,22,112/- shall be added to the total income of the assesse for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 over and above the income offered in the settlement application. Thereby ordering in para 5 as follows;
“In respect of the remaining issues discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this order, we have considered the contentions of the applicant and the department during the hearings and the various written submissions/ reports submitted in this regard. We are of the view that no further addition is called for on the remaining issues.”
Thus establishing that no other issue was left for making any further additions after the order of Interim Board of Settlement. The addition on account of jewelry sustained by ld. CIT(A) in AY 2018-19 too needs to be deleted. In this regard our attention was also drawn to the order passed by the co-ordinate benches in the case of another director namely Mr. ParkashSachdev vide ITA no. 3028 & 3035/De;/2023 for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 where in appeal of department have been dismissed on the basis findings of Interim Board of Settlement.
We thus sustain the grounds in appeal of assesse and reject in department’s appeal. Resultantly the appeal of assesse ITA 2884 is allowed and appeal ITA 3017 of Revenue is dismissed.