THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. USHA COMPRESSORS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 691/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 February 2018AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, following its own previous order on a similar issue for a different assessment year. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as there was no distinction in facts or law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order restricting cash deposit additions to the peak sum. The assessee's cross-objections supported the CIT(A)'s decision. The Assessing Officer had rejected the assessee's explanation that the deposits were from unaccounted sales.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in bank accounts, explained as unaccounted sales, can be added to income, and if so, to what extent. The issue also involves the principle of judicial consistency in applying prior tribunal rulings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 01.02.2018Pronounced: 08.02.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 691 & 692/Ahd/2016 WITH CO Nos. 50 & 61/Ahd/16 (Assessment Years: 2007-2008 & 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel- 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380 015 Appellant Vs. M/s. Usha Compressors Pvt. Ltd., 1708, Usha Engineering Works, GIDC Industrial Estate, Phase-III, GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad – 382 445 Respondent/Cross Objector PAN: AAACU3349R राज�व क� ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. आवेदक क� ओर से/By Assessee : Shri P. F. Jain, A.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 01.02.2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2018 ORDER PER BENCH

The Revenue’s instant two appeals as well as assessee’s corresponding cross objections for assessment years 2007-08 & 2012-13 arise against the CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad’s separate orders, both dated 04.01.2016, in case nos. CIT(A)- 8/149/14-15 & CIT(A)-8/188/14-15, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

A combined perusal of the Revenue’s identical grievance in its both appeals reveals that it seeks to restore the Assessing Officer’s action making unexplained

ITA Nos. 691 & 692/Ahd/16 with CO Nos. 50 & 61/Ahd/16 A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2012-13 [M/s. Usha Compressors Pvt. Ltd.] - 2 - cash deposit addition u/s.68 of the Act amounting to Rs.56,82,608/- and Rs.31,45,000/-, which have been restricted by the CIT(A) to the extent of peak sum only. The tax payers’ cross objections on the other hand are supportive of the CIT(A)’s identical upholding Assessing Officer’s action making the impugned addition to the extent of peak amount in two impugned assessment years.

3.

We notice at the outset that there is no dispute so far as the basic fact that the assessee had indeed made cash deposits in its bank accounts involving the two sums; is concerned. The Assessing Officer rejected its explanation that the said deposits were in fact its unaccounted sales. The CIT(A) however follows tribunal’s order in assessment year 2011-12 ITA No.2159/Ahd/2014 decided on 24.09.2015 restricting similar cash deposits addition of peak credit only thereby sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The said order forms part of record before us. Learned Departmental Representative fails to indicate any distinction on facts or law in these three assessment years since involving identical issue. We therefore adopt judicial consistency to affirm CIT(A)’s findings under challenge in both assessment years. The Revenue’s identical substantive ground as well as its two appeals fail accordingly. The assessee’s cross objections therein supportive of the CIT(A)’s order stand rendered infructuous.

4.

These two Revenue’s appeals ITA Nos. 691 & 692/Ahd/2016 are dismissed whereas assessee’s cross objections therein CO Nos. 50 & 61/Ahd/2016 are dismissed as having become infructuous.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 08th day of February, 2018.]

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 08/02/2018 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee

ITA Nos. 691 & 692/Ahd/16 with CO Nos. 50 & 61/Ahd/16 A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2012-13 [M/s. Usha Compressors Pvt. Ltd.] - 3 - 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →