Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue appealed against an order of the Ld.CIT(A) that deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68. The addition was related to a sum of Rs. 24,53,591/- received by the assessee from Ravi Prakash, which the assessee claimed was for services rendered to M/s Romex International.
Held
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already decided a similar issue in favour of the appellant in another case involving group concerns. Therefore, adhering to judicial consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld.CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act regarding unexplained cash credits, considering the assessee's explanation and co-ordinate bench decisions?
Sections Cited
68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKSH KANTShri Sanjay Jagdish Patel
This appeal filed by the revenue is arising out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax,(Appeals)-5,Mubai[hereafter, Ld.CIT(A)], dated 11/02/2025 for the assessment year 2011-12.
The only effective ground raised by the revenue in the present appeal relates to the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer made under section 68 of the Act, by not appreciating the facts of the case.
2 ITA 2929/Mum/2025 Sanjay Jagdish Patel 3. We have heard the arguments of both the counsels, perused the materials placed on record, judgements cited before me and also the order passed by the revenue authorities.
From the records we noticed that the addition of Rs. 24,53,591/- was made in the hands of assessee on account of money received by the assesse from one Ravi Prakash, who, upon investigation by the Investigation Wing was found to have opened a bank account for a short period of time and deposited huge cash into it. Whereas the assesse had taken a specific stand that this payment has been received on behalf of service rendered to M/s Romex International. The assessee had submitted that the receipt had been appropriated towards the amount payable by M/s Romex International and the source of the same is not relevant for him as there is no legal bar on the same. It was also submitted that similar addition has been made in the case of one of the group concerns, viz. Kamal Clearing an Forwarding Agency Private Limited in which the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 02/01/2025 in has already decided the issue in favour of the appellant therein. After having gone through the facts of the present case and also the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Kamal Clearing an Forwarding Agency Private Limited (supra), we find that there is no doubt about the fact that the assessee had already disclosed the receipt from Ravi Prakash as his business receipt on account of receivable from M/s Romex International and moreover, the co-ordinate bench of ITAT has already taken a decision under the similar facts and circumstances. Therefore, while adhering to the principles of judicial consistency and discipline, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue and uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A).