Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Confirms ₹36.59 Cr Addition for Bogus Sale of Shops via Accommodation Entry

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 9732
Case Name
Raheja Developers Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2011-12
Advertisement


Raheja Developers Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Sale of Shops to Shell Company Held Bogus, Own Funds Routed back through Accommodation Entry- ITAT confirms Addition of ₹19.06 Cr & ₹17.53 Cr

Assessee claimed sale of 22 shops in Raheja Mall, Gurugram to M/s Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) for ₹36.56 crore, receiving ₹19.06 crore in AY 2011-12 & ₹17.53 crore in AY 2012-13. AO treated the transaction as bogus & added the amounts u/s 68, along with commission @ 2%, alleging accommodation entries. CIT(A) upheld the additions. Assessee appealed before ITAT.

1. Reopening of assessment upheld

  • Reopening was beyond 4 years, but ITAT held that fresh information from Investigation Wing, Kolkata about shell company STPL was tangible material.
  • STPL was controlled by entry operator Jagdish Purohit, who admitted u/s 132(4) that STPL was only giving bogus entries.
  • Raheja failed to truly & fully disclose these facts earlier.
  • Hence, reopening u/s 147/148 valid.

2. Objections to reopening filed very late

  • Reasons were provided on 12.07.2018, but Assessee filed objections after 124 days, at the fag end of assessment.
  • AO discussed objections in final order.
  • Held: No violation of GKN Driveshaft.

3. Substance of the transaction – a complete sham

  • STPL had negligible profits, no real business, huge share application money – classic shell traits.
  • Funds credited & immediately transferred to Raheja on same day (layering).
  • Managing Director of Raheja, Mr. Navin Raheja, became director & major shareholder of STPL before transaction.
  • No sale deed registered, no physical possession till 2015.
  • Purchaser never insisted on registration or possession for years – highly improbable in genuine sale.
  • Many shops were returned to Raheja or sold to third parties without STPL’s name ever being registered.
  • STPL did not earn any rent, only deemed rent was assessed.
  • Mutation in municipal records does not prove ownership.

4. ITAT’s powerful observation

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 6,232

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.