Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH
Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh
Revenue by: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri P.S. Parmar, A.R. Date of hearing : 24-07-2019 Date of pronouncement : 04-09-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, arises from order of the CIT(A)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 26-03-2014, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 in respect of share capital including share premium received by the appellant.
Page No 2 M/s. Bansal Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT (OSD)
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made u/s 68 in respect of unsecured loan received by the appellant.
3. The learned CIT(A) has observed and noted that the whole of the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- added u/s 68 of the Act has already been offered as income by Shri Vijay Bansal before the Settlement Commission on pages 28-29 of his impugned order. However, he has erred in not deleting the said amount in the hands of the appellant despite giving such clear finding. His action has resulted into double taxation of the very same income which is not permissible under the Act. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring \ various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in levying interest u/s 234A/B/C of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act.”
During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has brought to our notice that assessee has preferred an application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission for assessment year 2006-07 to 2011-12. He has further submitted that before the Settlement Commission, the assessee has made an aggregate disclosure of Rs. 10.15 crores which also included disclosure of Rs. 4 cores for assessment year 2009-10. The ld. counsel after referring the order of Settlement Commission contended that the additions made by the assessing officer has become infructuous as the same are covered in the disclosure made by the assessing officer before the Settlement Commission. The ld. counsel has also furnished copy of decision of Income Tax Settlement Commission passed u/s. 245(D)(4) on 7th July, 2014. The ld. departmental representative could not controvert the aforesaid claim of the assessee that addition made in the case of the assessee are covered in the disclosure made before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. After considering the fact that Income Tax Settlement Commission has passed order u/s. 245(D)(4) on 7th July, 2014 in the case of the assessee itself , we restore the case to the file of the assessing officer to Page No 3 M/s. Bansal Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT (OSD) decide the issue in appeal afresh after verification and examination of the claim of the assessee that the additions made in assessment are covered in the disclosure made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of assessing officer for deciding afresh as directed above after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.