ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JACKSON INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue are verbatim same except variation in the quantum. Therefore, for the facility of reference we take note of the grounds of appeal in Assessment Year 2007-08, which reads as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) law in deciding that the assessee had genuine business done during the year even though the assessee company could neither produce any proper trade license of any trading nor it was registered with west Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in mot appreciating the efforts of the assessing office that all so called “Sellers” and “purchasers” of the assessee company were shell entities having only technical identity with no business conducted by them.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Ld. CIT(A) has erred law in not appreciating the fact that the assessee company itself was identified as a s shell company indulging in sale and purchase of shares with active participation of the promoters and the transactions shown as business turnover, were nothing but accommodation entries of 'debit' as well as 'credit through layering to benefit ultimate unidentified beneficiaries.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition made by the A0 as unexplained cash credit.

That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

In brief the grievance of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,60,15,512/-, Rs.4,27,47,762/-, Rs.4,97,16,500/-, Rs.1,61,54,218/- and Rs.1,52,09,681/- in Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2012-13 excluding 2010-11 respectively. The case of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has made deposits of all these amounts in cash in bank account. The assessee claimed that these are the cash sales made by it in textile business. The Assessing Officer disbelieved this business on the ground that the assessee failed to produce bill exhibiting transportation of goods, loading / unloading details and place. He also observed that the assessee failed to produce cash book, ledger and complete purchase bills of these activities. Therefore, he disbelieved the very conduct of business in this line. Accordingly, he treated the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and made addition in respect of these years. Assessment Year: 2014-15 Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 4

Dissatisfied with the assessment orders, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. First Appellate Authority has upheld the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act but deleted the additions on merit by following the order of the ITAT for Assessment Year 2010-11 in the assessee’s own case. The discussion made by the ld. CIT(A), reads as under:- Assessment Year: 2014-15 Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 5 “ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 6 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 7 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 8 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 9 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 10

With the assistance of the ld. D/R, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that there is no disparity on facts. In these orders vis-à-vis 2010- 11, the identical findings were recorded by the ld. First Appellate Authority which have been upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed.

Before we part with this order, we would like to mention that as per Rule 34 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, an order is required to be pronounced preferably within ninety days from the date of hearing. We are conscious of the fact, but it is pertinent to observe that after the hearing, one of us (i.e., Vice- President) remained on tour to Mumbai, Hyderabad & Tirupati (Camp) Benches, thereafter on medical leave and, therefore, not available in Kolkata for more than one month. Due to this reason, the order could not be pronounced within 90 days and it is pronounced roughly in 98 days. Order pronounced in the Court on 14th December, 2022 at Kolkata. (RAJESH KUMAR) VICE-PRESIDENT Kolkata, Dated 14/12/2022 *SC SrPs Assessment Year: 2014-15 Padmini Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 11

""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील / The CIT(A)- ( ) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, , , 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.