ITO WARD-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. THE SURAT SAFE DEPOSIT VAULT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) vide Appeal No. CIT(A)-8/61/2015-16 order dated 09/05/2017 arising out 2 . A.Y. 2007-08 of assessment order dated 27/03/2015. The revenue has taken following grounds of appeal: 1) That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is liable to be set aside as he has admitted fresh evidence in gross violation of the Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 2) That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made of Rs. 2,43,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act. 3) That the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that sec. 68 of the Act mandates that genuineness of the transactions is also to be proved by the assessee, which has not been done in this case especially in the face of stark difference between the amount mentioned by the assessee in his books and that shown in the books of M/s. Basant Marketing. 4) The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the orders of different CIT (A) in different cases do not serve as precedent.

In this case, Ld. A.O. reopened the case for the reason that assessee company has obtained accommodation entry in the form of loans and advances for Rs. 2,43,00,000/- from Basant Marketing P. Ltd. on the basis of information received from DCIT, CC, XXVII, Kolkata.

Thereafter a letter u/s. 133(6) issued to the depositor, Basant Marketing P. Ltd. has submitted its confirmation for Rs. 2,43,00,000/- with copy of bank accounts reflecting the transactions therein. Thereafter by another letter Basant Marketing P. Ltd. submitted a letter stating that information /details were sent inadvertently showing an outstanding balance of Rs. 2,43,00,000/- ignoring the rectification entry of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Further, it was stated that the amount outstanding in the account of the assessee company is only Rs. 1,93,00,000/- which has repaid during F.Y. 2014- 15. The assessee attached there with ledger copy of confirmation account for F.Y. 2014-15.

Thereafter, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who granted relief to the assessee holding that activities of Basant Marketing P. Ltd. has been examined by the Department found to be genuine.

We have heard both the parties and gone through the impugned order. The assessee has furnished copy of audited accounts, balance sheet and P&L account along with annexure, copy of ledger of Basant Marketing P. Ltd. And during the course of assessment proceedings, Basant Marketing P. Ltd. categorically confirmed the entry of Rs. 2,43,00,000/- with copy of bank accounts reflecting the transaction therein. And M/s. Basant Marketing P. Ltd. has confirmed amount outstanding in the account of assessee company is only Rs. 1,93,00,000/- which has been repaid during F.Y. 2014-15. And so far remaining amount 50,00,000/- is concerned, assessee filed separate proof of payment to the A.O. and again filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was at Calcutta conducted detailed enquiry of Basant Marketing P. Ltd. wherein it is mentioned that Basant Marketing is not a fake company and its activities are genuine.

Assessee has filed an order of ITAT Mumbai Benches in and ITA 6807/Mum/2018 wherein one person namely Shri Harsh Dalmia was the beneficiary to the tune of Rs. 1,14,85,500/- from the group companies namely Basant Marketing P. Ltd. who was assessed to tax with them who provided accommodation entry and Department issued notice and Ld. A.O. made addition in the case of Harsh Dalmia.

Thereafter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) relief was granted to the assessee and thereafter Department appeal was dismissed by the ITAT holding that activities of Basant Marketing are found to be genuine. And thereafter no appeal was filed by the Department against the order of the ITAT Mumbai Benches. So considering above 4 . A.Y. 2007-08 all these facts, we are of the opinion that order of Ld. CIT(A) is detailed and reasoned and same does not require any kind of interference at our end.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.