Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
Appellant, ACIT, Central Circle 11, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXI, New Delhi on the grounds inter alia that :-
“1. The order of ld. CIT (A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition ofRs.9,35,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the IT Act made on protective basis on account of seized documents.”
Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee company is a group company of Shiv Vani Group. During search operation of various premises of M/s. Shiv Vani Group, various documents were found and seized.
Assessing Officer (AO) taking note of one transaction referred at page 56 of Annexure A-14 of Mr. Jain involved in giving entries to various companies of Shiv Vani Group as Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. have all the transactions and source of funds through Mr. Jain, the flagship company of group, substantive addition of Rs.9,35,00,000/- has been made in the hands of Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. and protective addition has been made in the hands of the present assessee u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and thereby framed the assessment at Rs.9,35,04,777/- u/s 153A of the Act.
Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing the appeal who has deleted the protective addition by accepting the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT (A), the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
Assessee has not preferred to put in appearance despite issuance of the notice and consequently, we proceeded to decide the present appeal with the assistance of the ld. DR as well as on the basis of documents available on the file.
We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the Revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ld. DR for the Revenue challenging the impugned order relied upon the order passed by the AO.
We have perused the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) who has deleted the addition by thrashing the facts and law applicable thereto by returning following findings :-
“4.2.8 It has been explained that the amounts have been received towards sale of shares held as stock-in-trade. It is seen that financial statements of the company do establish that the appellant had sold shares which were held by it as stock-in-trade. The profit and loss account of the year ending 31.03.2007 shows sales to the tune of Rs.11,82,40,000/-. Schedule I to the balance sheet also gives details of stock of shares held, purchased and sold during the year. It has been submitted that during the year there are purchase of shares of both of private limited and publicly listed companies. The AR has submitted that the sale considerations of these shares have been remitted into the bank account and the said page 56 of Annexure B14. A14 is the summary of receipts into the bank account of different companies (listed therein). Merely because Mr. Jain’s name appears on the top of the table, it should not be inferred that the transactions are unaccounted.”
Perusal of the aforesaid findings returned by ld. CIT (A) goes to prove that the same are based upon thrashing of facts in view of the law applicable thereto. When profit & loss account of the assessee shows sale to the tune of Rs.11,82,40,000/- and Schedule I to the balance sheet also gives details of stock of shares held, purchased and sold during the year and consideration of the sale of the aforesaid shares has been received by the assessee through banking channel as per detail given in para 56 Annexure B-14 and A-14 which is the summary of receipts into the bank account of different companies, ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that in the given circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the source of deposit in the bank is unexplained. So, there being revenue receipt already credited into profit & loss account or reduced from investment, no addition u/s 68 of the Act on protective basis in the hands of the assessee can be made. So, ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the protective addition. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A), the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 24th day of November, 2021.