Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
23-10-2024
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
21-10-2024
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
01-05-2023
Judgement Text
" \n1 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \n IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \n DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI \nBEFORE \n SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \n AND \n SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER \n \n ITA No. 1329/Del/2023, A.Y.2012-13) \n \n \n \nITA No. 1330/Del/2023, A.Y.2013-14) \n \n \n \nITA No. 1331/Del/2023, A.Y.2014-15) \n \n \n \nITA No. 1332/Del/2023, A.Y.2015-16) \n \n \n \nITA No. 1333/Del/2023, A.Y.2016-17) \n \nBellflower Infrabuild Pvt. \nLtd. \nS. No. 21, Site No.-1793, \nKotla Road, Opp. \nBalbhaban, Delhi-110002 \nPAN : AACCB9618E \n \n \nVs. \nACIT \nCentral Circle-13, E-2, \nARA Centre, Jhandewalan \nExtension, \nDelhi \n(Appellant) \n \n (Respondent) \n \nAppellant by \nNone \nRespondent by \nMs. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR \n \nDate of Hearing \n21/10/2024 \nDate of Pronouncement \n23/10/2024 \n \nORDER \n \nPER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM : \n \nAll the above mentioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the \ncommon orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-28, Delhi [“Ld. \nCIT(A)” for short], dated 25/08/2022 for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to \n2016-17 respectively. \n \n\n \n2 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \n2. \nThere are delay of 145 days in filing the above appeals. The Assessee \nfiled an application for condontion of delay contending that the order of the \nCIT(A) has been served on the Assessee vide order dated 25/08/2022 and \nthe Assessee has filed Appeal electronically on 05/12/2022,further filed the \nphysical copies of documents on 01/05/2023, the delay in filing the present \nAppeals are only due to unavailability of the counsel and for certain \ntechnical reasons which are not intentional but for a bonafide reasons that \nthe Assessee relied upon the message popped up on the screen as ‘in case, \nsize of an enclosure to be uploaded is more than 10Mb, please e-mail the \nsame to concerned bench after acceptance of e-filing by the Bench. The \nAssessee was waiting for acceptance by the Bench to submit the documents \nphysically, therefore, there was delay in filing the appeal physically which is \nnot intentional’. \n \n3. \n We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and \nalso the affidavit of the Assessee. For the reasons stated in the affidavit and \nthe application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the above \nappeals are hereby condoned. \n \n4. \nNone appeared for the Assessee, several notices have been issued to \nthe registered address of the Assessee which were returned with the postal \nacknowledgement the ‘Addressee not known’. Considering the above facts \n\n \n3 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nand circumstances, we deem it fit to decide the above Appeals after hearing \nthe Ld. Departmental Representative and on verifying the material available \non record. \n \n5. \nThe Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the order of the Lower \nAuthorities, submitted that both the orders of the A.O. as well as CIT(A) are \nrequire no interference as the additions have been rightly made by the A.O. \nwhich have been confirmed by the CIT(A) after considering all the contention \nof the Assessee by adjudicating all the issues. Thus, the Ld. DR sought for \ndismissal of the Appeals filed by the Assessee. \n \n6. \nHeard the Ld. DR perused the material available on record.The \nAssessee filed Appeals before the CIT(A) aggrieved by the Assessment Orders \nfor the A.Y 2012-13 to 2016-17. The Ld. CIT(A) decided all the issues \ninvolved in the Appeal on its merit. Since the identical issues have been \ndecided by the CIT(A) the finding of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 are \nreproduced as under: - \n“7. \nGround No. 4, 5, 6 & 7: The appellant has submitted that \nthe assessing officer has erred in making the addition on the \nprotective basis without complying the statutory requirement of \nIssuing show cause notice before making the Impugned addition. \nThe assessing officer has erred in making the addition without \ngiving opportunity of being heard to Assessee Company and \nmade the assessment only on the basis of appraisal report of the \nInvestigating officer. The submissions made by the assessee \ncompany was not appreciated by the assessing officer while \n\n \n4 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nconcluding the assessment. The addition was made without cross \nexamining the statements of the other parties. The statement of \nSh. Mukesh Kumar, Sh. Deepak Aggarwal and others were not \nconfronted with any of them. The assessing officer has erred in \nmaking the addition considering the assessee company as Shell \nCompany and providing the accommodation entries to the \nbeneficiaries without establishing the evidences and cross \nexamine the same. \n \n7.1 From the evidences found during the course of search & \nseizure action it was squarely proved that the assessee company \nis only a shell company operated and managed by entry \noperators i.e. Sh. MukeshKumar and Sh. Deepak Aggarwal for \nproviding accommodation entriessuch as share capital, share \napplication money, share premium, unsecured loans and bogus \nbilling in lieu of certain amount of commission. The AO has \ndiscussed the findings in detail in the assessment order that the \nassessee company was engaged in providing accommodation \nentry, which was accepted in the statements recorded during the \ncourse \nof \nsearch \nand \npost \nsearch \nproceedings \nby \nSh. \nMukeshKumar. This fact was corroborated by the various \nincriminating documents seized/found during the course of \nsearch operation and other circumstantial evidences. Sh. Mukesh \nKumar, the entry provider who had been controlling the affairs of \nthe appellant company had again and again admitted during \nsearch, pre search and post search operations as well as during \nthe course of assessment proceedings that the appellant was \nengaged in the activities of providing accommodation entries to \nvarious beneficiaries in close association with Sh. Deepak \nAggarwal and other associates. Para 17 of the assessment order \nhas clearly summarized the modus operandi and Department's \nfindings leaving no doubt that the appellant company was not an \naccommodation providing entity. \n \n7.2 Further, para-3 of the assessment order provides the details \nof the opportunities given to the appellant and non-compliance on \nthe part of the appellant. It is also categorically mentioned that \nfinal show cause notice was issued to the appellant on \n12.12.2018.It is seen that the appellant itself delayed the filing of \ndocuments during the assessment proceedings. Initially, there \nwas no compliance to the notices issued under section 153A. \nSeveral opportunities were provided by the AO and for non-\ncompliance on the part of the Appellant penalty notice were also \n\n \n5 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nissued U/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant has \ndelayed the filing of the requisite details and till the passing of \nthe assessment order full details were not submitted by it in spite \nof ample opportunities provided to the appellant. \n \nThus, the plea of the appellant that assessment order was passed \nwithout giving proper opportunity to explain his case and without \nissuing show cause notice is found to be unjustified and factually \nincorrect. \n \n7.3 The appellant has also submitted that the additions were made \nonly on the basis of the findings of appraisal report of the investigating \nofficer and without providing opportunity to cross examining the \npersons who had given statements. The undersigned had issued a \nletter dated12.07.2022 to provide some specific details including \nwhether it has asked the assessing officer for any cross examination of \nAppeal No. 26/10125/2019-20, Α.Υ.2012-13 this case. But the same \nwas not complied. One more opportunity was given to the appellant to \nsubmit the same and a letter in this regard was issued on 19.07.2022 \nfixing the date of hearing on 25.07.2022, another One more opportunity \nwas given to the appellant to submit the same and a letter in this \nregard was issued on 05.08.2022 fixing the date of hearing on \n18.08.2022, however the appellant failed to submit the specific details \nasked, however, it has submitted all other legal excuses and \nsubmission in support of the claim. The letter dated 12.07.2022 has \nbeen annexed below for ready reference: \n \nTo, Dated 12.07.3023 \n \nM/s Bell Flower Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. \n D-8, Dekul Puri, \nNew Delhi-110094. \n \nSub-Appeal Nos. 10125, 10126, 10137, 10128 & 10129 in case of \nM/s Bell Flower Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd (PAN No.AACCB96188) for A.Υ. \n2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 2016-17-regarding. \n \nKindly refer to the above appeal. You are requested to provide following \n \n\n \n6 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \n1. Please specify all the premises occupied by your company since \n31.03.2008 till 20.02.2019, specifying the use of the premises, the copy of \nelectricity bills/water bill/house tax/ society maintenance/telephone bills/ \npaid, name & residential address of the senior most employee working at \neach premises his role/responsibilities/ monthly salary paid, if salary \npaid by cheque details of the same), name & address, Telephone Nos. of \nthe person who filed IT/VAT/GST/Service tax/ROC Returns on your \nbehalf and amount of fee paid to him along with details of fee paid to him \n(if paid by cheque pl. provide details), who was the owner of the premises, \nif \nthe \npremises \nwas \nnot \nowned \nby \nyou, \nthe \nfollowing \ninformation/document: \n \na. Capacity in which you were occupying \n \nb. copy of the rent agreement/ any other agreement, \n \nc. amount of compensation paid to the owner( if paid by cheque pl. provide \ndetails) \n \nii. Please provide particulars of the persons who were directors (from \n31.03.2009 \ntill \n31.03.2016) \nin \nyour \ncompany \nwith \ntheir \nroles \nand \nresponsibilities/ compensation paid, if compensation paid by cheque details of \nthe same and their return of income for the above period. \n \niii. Please specify all the transactions, including share capital/share application \nmoney/share premium, (from 31.03.2009 till 31.03.2016) between your \ncompany on one part and any of the companies where Sh. Mukesh Kumar \nis/was Director. Please furnish copy of the relevant ledger accounts in the \nbooks of your company. Also, please state as to whether, during the \nassessment proceedings, you demand the cross examination of any of the \nwitness used by the revenue. If yes, please produce evidence to support your \ncontention. \n \nThe above details may be filled on or before the next date of hearing i.e. \n13.07.2022. \n \n Thanking you, \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n(Binod Kumar) \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCommissioner of Income Tax, \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n(Appeals)-28, New Delhi \n \n \n \n \n\n \n7 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nFrom the above following is proved in the case of the assessee: \nΑ.Υ.2012-13 \n \ni) No sign of real existence of the company or of any activities \ncarried out was noticed during pre-search/search/post search \nvisits to the premises purportedly connected with the companies \nmanaged by Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Including the registered office \naddress. \n \nii) The company was not having any supporting vouchers/bills. \nBooks of account were being manufactured by the CA (Shri Girish \nSharma) based on the statement of the bank account(s) and \ninstructions of the entry operator (Shri Mukesh Kumar). \n \niii) The appellant company had no real employees. \n \niv) All the directors of the companies (which were being managed \nby Sh. Mukesh Kumar for providing accommodation entry) were \npetty people and were directors only for the namesake. \n \nvi) The company had no specific business premises either owned \nby it or rented. \n \nv) The company had no electricity connection in its name. \n \nvi) The appellant company had not been paying any society \nmaintenance bill. \n \nvii) None of the purported director or employee or even Legal \nconsultant was ever paid through cheque. \n \nTherefore, the actions of the AOs in terms of treating these \ntransactions as accommodation entries and disallowing claimed \ndeduction, in the hands of the appellant company, is found to be \nin order. The addition (in form of disallowing the claimed \ndeductions in respect of purported expenses) have been made \nbecause during the assessment proceedings, no details of nature \nof business were furnished and supporting evidence for incurring \nsuch expenses were furnished. During the present appellate \nproceedings, also, it was not the claim of the AR that such \ndetails/supporting documents were furnished, but has raised the \nlegal issues which is not found to be tenable considering the facts \non record. \n\n \n8 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \n \nThe observations made in the Pere-7.1 above and the findings \ndiscussed In the assessment order proves beyond doubt that the \nsale& purchase, share premium and expenses booked in the \nprofit and loss account are not genuine but are only \naccommodation entries. The AD has discussed in detail about the \nmodus operandi of the company and conclusively proved that the \nappellant company is an entry providing company. \n \nAccordingly, the assessing officer has computed the total amount of \nentry passed on in the relevant Financial Year and considering the case \nof the appellant the commission has been computed @2% on the entry \nprovided in the form of share capital, share premium, loans & \nadvances, Investments and ©1% on bogus purchases and sales.80% of \nsuch commission has been considered as Income in the hands of Sh. \nMukesh Kumar on substantive basis and on protective basis in the \nhands of the assessee company, while 20% of such commission has \nbeen added on substantive basis in the hands of the appellant. \nAccordingly, the A.O. has computed the commission on entries provided \nas share capital, share premium, loans & advances, Investments \[email protected]% i.e. Rs. 43,128/- and on the entries reflected in the bank \naccounts in the form of credit and debit entries at 1.25% l.e. Rs. \n12,75,630/-. Thus, the A.O. has computed the total commission income \nat Rs.13,18,758/- for the relevant F.Y. \n \n7.4 Similarly it has been observed that similar view has been taken in \nall other related companies which have been used for providing \naccommodation entry by Sh. Mukesh Kumar. The list of such companies \nhas been provided in Para-12, the assessment order in the case of Sh. \nMukesh Kumar. The summary of the additions made on substantive \nbasis in the hands of respective companies and in the hands of Sh. \nMukesh Kumar has been tabulated below: \n \n\n \n9 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \n \n \n \n7.5 The next relevant question is whether action of charging commission \nin respect of increase in Share Capital, Share Application & Share \nPremium and in respect of Debits/Credits entries in Bank account in is \nsustainable? \n \n7.6 The appellant did not submit any specific argument against such \naction except saying that there is no material to show that commission \nhas been charged. It is noted that during the assessment proceedings \n(or even during the present appellate proceedings), no details/evidence \nwere furnished to show as to how these were genuine transactions. In \nfact, during the search/pre-search/Post search enquiries/visits, no sign \nof genuine activity was seen/noticed. No books of accounts/supporting \nA.Y. 2012-13: \nSI, \nNo. \nName of the company \nTotal \nCommission \ncomputed \nCommission \nincome \nadded \nsubstantially \nin the hands \nof the Sh. \nMukesh \nKumar \nCommission \nincome added \nsubstantially \nin the hands of \nthe company \n1 \nGAP Trading & Investment Pvt. \nLtd. \n3187 \n3187 \n0 \n2 \nJai Ambe Foils Ltd. \n21715844 \n21715844 \n0 \n3 \nKaron Information Systems India \nPvt. Ltd. \n0 \n0 \n0 \n4 \nSubidha Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. \n3544419 \n2835535 \n708884 \n5 \nFirst choice Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. \n2556360 \n2045088 \n511272 \n6 \n] K Vehicles Finance Pvt. Ltd. \n14821 \n11857 \n2964 \n7 \nAravali Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. \n4535368 \n3628295 \n907073 \n8 \nBell Flower Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. \n1318758 \n1055006 \n263752 \n9 \nMahashiv Metal and alloys Pvt. \nLtd. \n. 13670016 \n10936013 \n2734003 \n10 \nHlmgiri Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. \n5258935 \n4207148 \n1051787 \n11 \nDecent Agencies Pvt. Ltd. \n21039770 \n16831816 \n4207954 \n12 \nParas Fincap Pvt. Ltd. \n1471750 \n1177400 \n294350 \n13 \nNavdisha International Marketing \nPvt. Ltd. \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \nMalvin IT Systems India Pvt. Ltd. \n0 \n0 \n0 \n15 \nMelody Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. \n0 \n0 \n0 \n16 \nEmrick Traders India Pvt. Ltd \n0 \n0 \n0 \n17 \nPolo Computers and Softwares \nPvt. Ltd. \n6220441 \n4976353 \n1244088 \n \nTotal \n81349669 \n69423542 \n11926127 \n\n \n10 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nvouchers were found. As it has already been established and accepted \nfact that \n1) Shri Mukesh Kumar is an entry operator. Shri Mukesh Kumar \nin his own statement admitted that he was charging commission \nfor such activities.; \n \nii) Several companies including this one (as per the assessment \norder dated: 28.12.2018 in the case of Mukesh Kumar) have been \nused by him for the purpose of providing accommodation entries, \n \niii) It was appellant company and its directors who did not comply \nfully with the statutory requirements till the time and date was very \nnear. \nTherefore, the conclusion that the activities of sale/ purchase, receipt \nof increase in share capital, debit/credit in the bank accounts are \nactivities of providing accommodation entries cannot be find fault \nwith. In fact, in view of the overwhelming material, including \nstatement of Shri Mukesh Kumar, the preponderance of probabilities \nis in favour of charging commission in respect of all these \ntransactions. During the assessment proceedings (or during the \npresent appellate proceedings, for that matter), the appellant failed to \nproduce any material to rebut any of the direct and circumstantial \nevidences against appellants. Also, the appellant failed to submit any \nmaterial evidence to indicate the contrary conclusion. Therefore, I do \nnot find any infirmity in the actions of the AOs in terms of charging \ncommission in respect of sale / purchase, receipt of increase in share \ncapital, debit/credit in the bank accounts. \n \nSince, these activities were basically being carried out by Shri \nMukesh Kumar by misusing the bank account maintained in name \nappellant \ncompany, \nthe \ncommission \nwould \nnaturallyMukesh \nKumar(in respect of such accommodation entries provided through \nbank accounts). \nIn view of the above discussion, the above question is answered in \naffirmative and consequently, AOs' actions in terms of making \nadditions on the account of commission earned on increase in Share \nCapital, Share Application & Share Premium and in respect of \nDebits/Credits entries in Bank account are confirmed. \n7.7 The next relevant question is whether action of charging \ncommission in respect of sale/purchase, receipt of increase in share \ncapital, debit/credit in the bank accounts maintained in the name of \nappellant company is sustainable. \n\n \n11 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nThe AR also argued that the AO has not made out a case as to how \nthe appellant company has charged commission. I agree with the \ncontention of the appellant's AR that although, the material on record \nconclusively proves that the transactions were carried out through \nthe bank accounts in the name of the non-descript companies \n(including the appellant company under consideration) with a view to \ncolour these transactions and to show them as genuine transactions \nin form of sale/purchase, receipt/ payment of share capital/share \npremium/ loan etc. It is also logical to conclude that the commission \nwas being charged from the beneficiaries of these accommodation \nentries. This commission was being charged in cash. However, it is \nnot proved that any part of this commission was income of the \nappellant company. \nIn my considered opinion, none of the material cited in the \nassessment order suggested that the appellant company were \nentitled toreceive any part of the said commission. In order to assess \nany part of the said commission in the hands of the appellant \ncompany which artificial juridical persons, either the appellant \ncompany should have right to receive such part of commission (then, \nIt 'accrues' to the appellant company) or some part the said \ncommission should become property of the company (by way of route \nof share capital or any other receipt which is claimed to be tax free). \nTherefore, in spite of confirming the conclusion arrived at by the AO \nas mentioned earlier, Including the following conclusions, \n1) No sign of real existence of the company or of any activities \ncarried out was noticed during pre-search/search/post search \nvisits to the premises purportedly connected with the companies \nmanaged by Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Including the registered office \naddress. \nii) The company was not having any supporting vouchers/bills. \nBooks of account were being manufactured by the CA (Shri Girish \nSharma) based on the statement of the bank account(s) and \ninstructions of the entry operator (Shri Mukesh Kumar). \niv) The appellant company had no real employees. \n \nv) All the directors of the companies (which were being managed \nby Sh. Mukesh Kumar for providing accommodation entry) were \npetty people and were directors only for the namesake. \nvi) The company had no specific business premises either owned \nby it or rented. \nvil) The company had no electricity connection in its name. \nviii) The appellant company had not been paying any society \nmaintenance bill. \n\n \n12 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nix) None of the purported director or employee or even Legal \nconsultant was ever paid through cheque. \nConsidering the above findings, I am of the considered opinion \nthat the AO erred in making the impugned addition in terms of \ncharging commission in the hands of the appellant company. \nSuch commission should have been rightly charged in hands of \nactual beneficiary that is Individual accommodation entry \noperator (Shri Mukesh Kumar). \nIn view of the above discussion, the above question is answered \nin negative and consequently, actions of the AOs in terms of \nmaking additions of Rs.13,18,758/- on account of commission \n(out of which, 80% on protective basis & 20% on substantive \nbasis) in the hands of appellant company is not sustained and \nhence deleted. \nFurther, since the 20% of the unaccounted commission(Rs. \n2,63,752/-) was added in the case of the appellant on \nsubstantive basis, the summary of which has been provided in \nthe table in Para 7.4 above, is not sustainable in the hands of the \nappellant company and the same should have been considered in \nthe hands of the Individual entry operator, Sh. Mukesh Kumar in \nrespective assessment year. The AO, therefore, may take \nremedial action u/s 148 r. w. Section 150 of the IT Act, 1961 in \nthe hands of Sh. Mukesh Kumar in the relevant assessment year \nto make addition of unaccounted commission of Rs. 2,63,752/-. \nTherefore, in view of the above, these grounds i.e. 4, 5, 6&7 of \nappeals are Partly Allowed. \n \n8. The appellant has taken an additional ground which says that \n\"approval u/s 153D of the Act being mechanical and, invalid \napproval having been granted without due application of mind to \nthe facts of the appellant and provision of law and therefore, \norder of assessment is Invalid and deserves to be quashed.\" \nIn support of this appellant has submitted that \"It is submitted \nthat from perusal of section 153D of the Act, it is evident that it \nprovides for approval of learned Additional Commissioner for \neach assessment year referred to section 153C of the Act. It is \nsubmitted that learned Joint Commissioner therefore enquired to \nverified and approved that each of assessment year is complies \nwith For BEL ROWK WOULD PRIVATE Ltd as well as procedure \nlaid down under the Act. It is submitted that, for each unabated \nand abated assessments, the learned Assessing Officer and the \nApproving Authority [Additional CIT] shall have to verify the \n\n \n13 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nincriminating material found during the course of search or the \nseized material if pertain to the same assessment year and Its \nbasis. It is therefore submitted that, for granting approval under \nsection 153D of the Act, the Approving Authority shall have to \nverify and consider each assessment year and shall have to \napply independent mind to the material on record to see whether \nin each assessment year there are un-abated or abated \nassessments and their effect, if any. It is however submitted that \nin the present case, the Approving Authority has granted common \napproval and, therefore, there is no application of mind on the \npart of learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range \n4, New Delhi while granting common approval instead of granting \napproval under section 153D for each assessment years \nseparately. Reliance is placed on decision of Delhi Bench of \nHon'ble Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Duggal vs. ACIT and \nothers in 1813/D/2019 and others dated 19.1.2021. \"The \nAppellant has also relied upon several other judgments which has \nbeen reproduced in the forgoing para. \n8.1 Admission to allowing additional ground: The powers \nconferred on the CIT(A) by the IT Act are much wider than the \npowers of an ordinary Court of Appeal. Once the assessment \ncomes before the CIT(A), his competence is not restricted to \nexamining those aspects of assessment which are complained of \nby the assessee but ranges over the whole assessment and it is \nopen for him to correct the AO not only with regard to matter \nraised by the assessee in appeal but also with regard to any \nother matter considered by the AO and determined in the course \nof assessment. In other words, the powers of the CIT(A) is \ncoterminous with that of the AO. He can do whatever the AO can \ndo and can direct the AO co do what he failed to do. Refer: \nKanvur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SCI In view of this, the Courts \nhave taken a view that there is no reason to ustify the curtailment \nof powers of the CIT(A) to entertain additional rounds of appeal \nraised by the Assessee in seeking modification of the sessment \norder passed by the AO. Jute Corp. of India Ltd. 187 For BELL \nFLOWER INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIM(SC) National Thermal Power \nCo. Ltd. 229 ITR 383 (BC), Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 199 \nITR 351 (Bom) (FB), Further, the AD In his remand report has also \nnot raised any objection against the additional ground taken by \nthe assessee. Thus, the additional ground taken is allowed to be \nconsidered. \n8.2 The AO in his remand report has submitted that: The above \nsubmissions of the assessee company, are not acceptable as the \n\n \n14 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \ncontentions raised therein are not supported by any documentary \nevidence. In this respect, it is submitted that before passing \noriginal assessment order u/s 153A/153C of the Act, a draft \nassessment order is to be sent to Additional CIT for obtaining \nprior approval u/s 153D of the Act. The seized material etc. along \nwith appraisal report are also to be provided to the Addl. CIT \nhaving jurisdiction over the case. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT first \nexamines the seized material, applies his mind and then after \ngoing through the draft assessment order, he issues approval u/s \n153D of the Act to pass the assessment order through his letter \nsent to AC. In this process, the assessee company is not called for \nby the Addl. CIT because it is a departmental internal \nadministrative matter. In view of the facts stated above it cannot \nbe said that no valid approval had been obtained u/s 153D of the \nAct, for passing original assessment order u/s153C of the Act. \nAlso, it cannot be said that the assessment made u/s 153C is \ninvalid and not in accordance with law. It can also not be said \nthat the Addl. CIT has granted approval u/s 153D without due \napplication of his mind. A copy of order of approval u/s 153D of \nthe Act granted by the Addl. CIT vide his letter dated 24.12.2018 \nis also enclosed herewith. It is also important to submit that there \nis mo bar in the Income Tax Act to pass a common order while \ngranting approval by Addl. CIT to the AOs of all circles/Ranges. \nFurther as per CBDT guidelines as contained in Search and \nSeizure Assessment F.No. 286/161/2006-IT(Inv.II) issued on \n22.12.2006. \n \nThe AO and Range Head should jointly scrutinize the appraisal \nreport and seized material and had to examine: \nCases where notice u/s 153A of the I.T Act, 1961 are required to \nbe issued. \n-Adetailed questionnaire should be prepared by the AD under the \nguidance of Range Head mentioning details of the Annexures \nrelating to the seized material. \nThe final show cause should be prepared in consultation with the \nAddl. CIT. Draft order should be prepared in consultation with the \nAddl.CIT. \nFurther, it is also needless to mention that the appraisal report \nwas forwarded to the Pr.CIT and Range Head along-with the AO. \nFurther, during assessment proceedings, the AO had forwarded \ndrafted questionnaire to the range head, vide letter dated \n04.10.2018 and the Range Head after analysing the draft \nquestionnaire, had approved the questionnaire and sent to the AO \n\n \n15 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nvide letter dated 27.10.2018(copy enclosed), it clearly indicates \nthat the Range Head had gone through the issues involved and \nthe material available with the department which was required to \nbe further clarified by the assessee. It clearly indicates that \nRange Head had applied his mind and due diligence before giving \napproval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the block \nassessment of assessee company. Hence, the approval given by \nthe Range Head with respect to the draft assessment order \nproposed by the AO cannot be termed as mechanical. \nFurther, in view of the above as per the CBDT guidelines stated \nabove, the due procedure was followed during block assessment \nproceedings by AO and Range Head and there was no \nmechanical procedure adopted. Further, the case-laws relied \nupon by the assessee company are also of no use.\" \n8.3 The submission of the assessee and the report submitted by \nthe AO is perused. It has been found that the AO has to be in \nconstant touch with the Jt./ Addl. Commissioner for approval of \nissuance of questionnaires and to discuss the issues involved on \na regular basis. It cannot be said that the AO has just sent the \ndraft order to get the approval of it U/s 153D. The Joint \nCommissioner has complete knowledge of the facts of the cases \nsince the matters are time barring and he/she regularly interact \nwith the Assessing Officers to get hold of the progress in the \ncases which he/she EDhas to approve. The final show cause \nnotice and draft assessment order are also prepared by the AO in \nconsultation of the Joint./ Addl. Commissioner. It appears that \nthe AO has followed the CBDT guidelines stated in above para \n(8.2) and the due procedure was followed during block \nassessment proceedings by AO and Range Head and there was \nno mechanical procedure adopted. From the remand report \nsubmitted by the AO It is found that the AO had submitted \nquestionnaire on 04.10.2018 which got approved on 27.10.2018. \nFurther, the AO also submitted that draft assessment order for \napproval before the Jt./ Addl. Commissioner which was approved \nas per provision U/s 153D of the IT Act. The appellant cannot say \nthat there was no application of mind just by seeing the approval \nletter of the Jt./ Addl. Commissioner. It is a well-known fact that \nAO & Jt./ Addl. Commissioner have to keep interacting regularly \nand discuss the cases which are being time barred in near future. \nMany a times, assessee just keep delaying the submissions so \nthat no adverse findings are made or can take flimsy legal \ngrounds before the appellate authorities. In this case too, the \nassessment order reveals that the assessee was not complying \n\n \n16 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \nregularly and penalty notice U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was also \nIssued for non-compliance. The appellant company has also not \nmade full submission as demanded by the AO. \n8.4 The appellant further submitted that the assessment record, \nseized materials and appraisal report must be available before \napproving authority. It is a normal practice in the department that \nthe draft order is put up along with the assessment records and \nrelied upon documents before the approving authority and the \nadditional copy of the Appraisal Report is already given to the \nJt./Addl. Commissioner. Further, from the records it is nowhere \nevident which proves that these records were not provided to the \napproving authority. \n8.5 Thus, the issue raised by the appellant does not find to be \nproper and just. The case laws relied upon by the appellant is not \napplicable inthis case as the facts of this case is different. \nConsidering the facts discussed above, it has been held that the \napproving authority had approved the assessment order as per \nprovision U/s 153D of the IT Act. Accordingly, the additional \nground taken by the Appellant is dismissed. \n \n9. In result the appeal is \"Partly Allowed.\" \n \n7. \n Considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has minutely adjudicated all \nthe issues involved in the Appeals filed by the Assessee for AY 2012-13 to \n2016-17, the Assessee has not appeared before the Tribunal even after \nissuing several notices to the registered address, since the findings and the \nconclusions of the CIT(A) has not been disputed by referring any documents \nor oral arguments, we find no error or infirmity in the findings, observations \nand the adjudication made by the CIT(A). Accordingly, we find no merit in \nthe Grounds of Appeal of the Assessee. \n \n \n \n\n \n17 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \n \n8. \nIn the result, Appeal in ITA Nos. 1329/Del/2023, 1330/Del/2023, \n1331/Del/2023, 1332/Del/2023 and 1333/Del/2023 are dismissed. \n \n Order pronounced in open Court on 23rd October, 2024 \n \nSd/- \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Sd/- \n (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) \n \n \n \n(YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) \n ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER \nDated: 23/10/2024 \nR.N, Sr. PS \nCopy forwarded to: \n \n1. Appellant \n2. Respondent \n3. CIT \n4. CIT(Appeals) \n5. DR: ITAT \n \n \n ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \n ITAT, NEW DELHI \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n18 ITA Nos. 1329, 1330, 1331,1332 & 1333/Del/2023 \n \n \nBell Flower Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
