Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY
आदेश / O R D E R
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-7/287/16-17 dated 11/10/2017 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 23/12/2016 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the revised grounds of appeal vide letter dated 1st May 2019 which are reproduced as under:
ITA No.2647/Ahd/2017 Rajgopal Processing Mills P.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2012-13 - 2 - 1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax Appeal-7 Ahmedabad erred in law as well in facts of the case of the appellant company in confirming the addition of Rs.24 lacs made by the income tax officer in the return income of the appellant company by treating the equity share capital as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax Appeal-7 Ahmedabad erred in law as well as in facts of case of the appellant company in not declaring the reopening & reassessment u/s 147 of the completed assessment as bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. Any other grounds of appeal as may be raised before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.
At the outset, the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that the finding given by the AO is contrary to the facts available on records. The discrepancies as brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the assessee stand as under: (1) Regarding the cash credit of ₹6 lakhs from M/s Printeage Offset Pvt. Ltd. The AO has inter-alia alleged that there was a cash deposit of ₹6.30 lakhs in the bank account of the company before transferring the fund to the assessee. But the learned AR claimed that no such cash was deposited in the bank account of the party. The learned AR in support of his claim drew our attention to the bank statement of the party placed on pages 31 to 37 of the paper book. (2) Regarding the cash credit of ₹6 lakhs from M/s Aditya Fashions Pvt. Ltd. The AO has inter-alia alleged that there was a cash deposit of ₹ 25.51 lakhs in the bank account of the company before
ITA No.2647/Ahd/2017 Rajgopal Processing Mills P.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2012-13 - 3 - transferring the fund to the assessee. But the learned AR claimed that no such cash was deposited in the bank account of the party. The learned AR in support of his claim drew our attention to the bank statement of the party placed on pages 68 to 72 of the paper book. (3) Regarding the cash credit of ₹6 lakhs from M/s Rangoli Commerce Pvt. Ltd. The AO has inter-alia alleged that - a. There was a cheque deposit of ₹ 25.00 lakhs in the bank account of the company before transferring the fund to the assessee. b. The total income of the company is of Rs. 96,910.00 despite the fact there were voluminous transactions in the account of the company. c. There is a mismatch in the addresses and the signatures of the company. (4) Regarding the cash credit of ₹6 lakhs from M/s Alaska Commerce Pvt. Ltd. The AO has inter-alia alleged that - a. There was a cheque deposit of ₹ 6.50 lakhs in the bank account of the company before transferring the fund to the assessee. b. The total income of the company is of Rs. 16,85,570.00 despite the fact there were voluminous transactions in the bank account of the company.
ITA No.2647/Ahd/2017 Rajgopal Processing Mills P.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2012-13 - 4 - c. There is a mismatch in the addresses and the signatures of the company.
In addition to the above, the AO also observed that the parties above mention at serial No. 1, 3 and 4 have replied the AO in response to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act in a single envelope. However, the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that all the parties made a reply in the separate envelopes. Regarding this, the learned AR drew our attention on pages 149 to 154 of the paper book. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee in the revised ground of appeal has also challenged the legality of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act on the ground that no proper reason has been recorded.
In view of the above, the learned AR for the assessee before us prayed to restore the matter to the file of the AO for the fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law as there are certain factual differences as discussed above which needs to be verified afresh.
On the other hand, the learned DR did not raise any objection on the prayer of the learned AR for the assessee but requested us to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT (A).
Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, it is clear that there are certain factual differences between the finding of the AO
ITA No.2647/Ahd/2017 Rajgopal Processing Mills P.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2012-13 - 5 - vis- a-vis the pieces of information available on record. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to restore this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law and in the light of the above-stated discussion.
We are setting aside the issue to the file of the AO by observing that the entire matter needs to be looked afresh by the AO. Even if we set aside the file the learned CIT-A, then also remand report is required from the AO. Therefore, to cut short the time in the processing of the file, we remit the matter back to the AO instead of learned CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/05/2019
Sd/- Sd/- (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 31/05/2019 ट�.सी.नायर, व.�न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
ITA No.2647/Ahd/2017 Rajgopal Processing Mills P.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2012-13
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 29.5.19 (word processed by Hon’ble AM in his computer by dragon) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 30.5.2019 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S … 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S…….31.5.19 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk…………………31.5.19 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order……………