COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI Vs. MANOJ AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) have been preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II against Manoj Aggarwal. ITA Nos. 904/2009 and 905/2009 are directed against the common judgment dated 25th July, 2008 passed by the Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in IT(SS) A No. 404/DELHI/2003 and IT(SS) A No. 415/DELHI/2003 preferred by Manoj Aggarwal and the Revenue respectively. THESE appeals pertain to the block assessment period 1991-92 to 2001-02 (upto 20th August, 2000). ITA No. 575/2009 is directed against the order passed by the tribunal dated 26th September, 2008 in ITA Nos. 5643/D/2004 and 5470/D/2004 preferred by Manoj Aggarwal and the Revenue for the assessment year 2001-02. In the order dated 26th September, 2008, the tribunal has remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to comply with the findings/observations in the order of the Special Bench dated 25th July, 2008, which is impugned in ITA Nos. 904/2009 and 905/2009. In this manner, the three appeals are inter-connected.

(2.) THE Revenue has raised the following questions of law in ITA Nos. 904/2009 and 905/2009:- a) Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.11,71,900/- on account of cash found during the course of search at various premises of the assessee? b) Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.18,10,079/- on account of commission income from the M/s. Bemco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.? c) Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in deleting the addition of interest charged U/S 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? d) Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in holding that transactions relating to sale/purchase of jewellery were genuine and the assessee was not carrying out accommodation entry business in respect of these transactions? e) Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in holding that genuine business transaction of sale and purchase of jewellery were carried out from 1182, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and B-108, Jai Sidhi Apartments, Ahemadabad? f) Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was not legally justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee? g) Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in holding that the assessee has carried out genuine business transaction of sale and purchase of jewellery items? h) Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in holding that the principle of probability of human behaviour laid down by the Apex Court in 82 ITR 540 and 214 ITR 801 is not applicable to the assessees case? i) Whether the order of I.T.A.T. is perverse as it has ignored the relevant facts on records including the seized material as well as the post search investigations/inquiries and assessment proceedings?

(3.) MANOJ Aggarwal accepted and admitted before the Revenue Authorities that he is an accommodation entry giver and had about 58 bank accounts in his own name, name of his father, HUF and others, including some companies. (Mr. MANOJ Aggarwal, however, disputes that all the bank accounts contain entries which could be classified and regarded as accommodation entries).