ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MAURIA UDYOG LTD., KOLKATA

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi dated 31.08.2016.

The assessee is a flagship company of Mauria group engaged in the business of manufacturing of LPG Cylinders, Self 2 Mauria Udyog Ltd. Closing Valves, Domestic Pressure Regulators, Adopter, Terry Towel, Readymade Garments, Cylinder Accessories and trading in Edible Oil Seed, Valves HR Coil, GI Pipe, TMT Bar, Burner Top Burner Spindle, Shares Securities, Land & Real Estates and all type of steels.

At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the same issue of cash transactions with Amarpali Group has been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in 6660 & 6661/Del/2016 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the case of the assessee vide order dated 29.11.2018. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion of the order is as under:

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during search and survey operations conducted at various premises of Mauria Udyog Ltd. incriminating documents relating to transactions undertaken by the 3 group with Amrapali Group of companies were seized. One such document which was a .xls file was extracted from Annexure A-2 Party P-17 from the residence of 3 Mauria Udyog Ltd. Shri Rohtash Kumar. Statement of Shri Rohtash Kumar was recorded u/s 13294) of the Act. The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under:

The CIT(A), drawing support from the decision given by him in the case of M/s Bihari Ispat Udyog Ltd in Appeal No. 23/16- 17, deleted the addition.

Before us, the ld. Counsel vehemently stated that though the additions have been made u/s 69A of the Act, the said provisions are not at all applicable to the facts of the case in hand. It is the say of the ld. AR that since the foundation itself is weak, the super structure must fall.

Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.

A plain reading of the aforesaid section clearly shows that it is applicable in a case where the assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. The facts of the case in hand show that the assessee was never found to be in possession of any real money. The addition having been made only on the strength of some notings found in some file extracted from the computer of Shri Rohtash, clearly establish that the provisions of section 69A of the Act do not apply. We agree with the contention of the ld. AR that the foundation itself is weak and the addition should not survive. However, the Assessing Officer made the addition on the strength of the statement of Shri Rohtash wherein he has admitted that Rs. 1 crore has been received. Exhibit 85 of the 6 Mauria Udyog Ltd. paper books reveals that on the date of receipt of the impugned amount, the same was returned back to Amrapali Group by M/s Bihariji group. The entries of Rs. 50 lakhs each on 11.12.2012 and 01.02.2013 can be seen from the said Exhibit 85 of the paper book. This means that the date on which the alleged Rs. 1 crore was received, on the very same day the same was returned back.

More importantly, there is no mention of the assessee’s name in the impugned document. The Assessing Officer has simply assumed that the reference to the impugned amount is in relation to the assessee. In our understanding, no addition can be made on the basis of presumptions and surmises. Assuming, yet not accepting that the amounts were received by the assessee, the same were returned back on the very same date as per Exhibit 85 of the paper book. Even on this count, addition is uncalled for.

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

Since, the issue has been squarely covered by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT as mentioned above except the change in the quantum involved, in the absence of any change in the material facts and legal proposition, the appeal of the Revenue on this ground is hereby dismissed.