TISTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7957/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 September 2021AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) acknowledged the assessee's submission that the amount was received by the sister concern. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Tista Technologies Ltd., received an addition of ₹5 lacs under Section 68 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee contended that the amount was not received by them but by their sister concern, Alankar Tech Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition under Section 68 can be made when the amount was received by a sister concern and not the assessee, and this fact was acknowledged by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, AR
Hearing: 27.09.2021Pronounced: 27.09.2021

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-18, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-18/IT-10437/ITO-11(3)(1)/18-19 vide dated 28.11.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3)(1) Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 17.12.2018 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer of ₹5 lacs under section 68 of the Act allegedly received from Shubhankar Vinimay Pvt. ltd. 2 Tista Technologies Ltd; AY 2011 -12 3. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I noticed that the assessee before Assessing Officer as well as before CIT(A) stated that the amount of ₹5 lacs, the alleged payment made by Shubhankar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., was never made to the assessee but was made to sister concern Alankar Tech Pvt. Ltd. This fact is noted by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order and even by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala stated the fact that the reassessment of Alankar Tech Pvt. Ltd. also noted this fact by the Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, ward 10(2)(4), Mumbai on the same issue. He drew our attention to assessee’s paper book at page 4, wherein the assessment order of Alankar Tech Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2011-12 order dated 17.12.2018 is enclosed and this fact has been discussed in Para 3 which read ad under:-

1.

3. The assessee is engaged in business of trading of goods and investments in Real estate. The assessee furnished explanation to the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment i.e. transaction of ₹5,00,000/- with Subhankar vinimay Pvt. Ltd, and produced Bank statement copy to substantiate that the credit received on 13.01.2011 from Subhankar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd was through a Bank error which has been reversed by the bank on 17-01-2011, and also that there are no other transactions between the period 13-01-2011 to 17- 01-2011. Subject to the datas and materials provided, the returned loss of ₹22,426/- of the assessee company is accepted.

4.

I noted that the Assessing Officer also noted this fact that on the same amount and same payment in Para 5 and the relevant portion reads as under:-

3 Tista Technologies Ltd; AY 2011 -12 “…. On perusal of copy of bank statement of M/s Subhakar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd, it is noticed that on 13.01.2011, an RTGS credit of ₹5,00,000/- was made in favour of M/s. Tista Technologies Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, a show cause notice dt. 22.11.2018 was issued and served requiring the assessee to explain as to why the amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- received from M/s. Subhakar Vinimay Pvt. ltd during the A.Y. 2011-12 should not be treated as unexplained credit. In response, the assessee submitted letter dated 26.11.2018 wherein it has been stated that the alleged payment of ₹5,00,000/- made by M/s Subhankar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. was made to the sister concern M/s. Alankar Tech Pvt. ltd. and not to the assessee. The reassessment for M/s. Alankar Tech Pvt. ltd. is currently ongoing before ITO-Ward 10(2)(4), Mumbai on same issue. In absence of any receipt by the assessee, the addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 cannot be made. To substantiate its claim the assessee submitted bank statement of assessee, M/s Alankar TechPvt. Ltd. and M/s. Subhankar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd……”

5.

From the above, it is clear that this amount of ₹5 lacs received from Subhankar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd, was received by assessee’s sister concern Alankar Tech Pvt. Ltd and not by the assessee. Hence, addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is deleted. The orders of the lower authorities are reversed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.09.2021. (भहावीय स िंह /MAHAVIR SINGH) (उऩाध्मक्ष / VICE PRESIDENT) भ िंफई, ददनािंक/ Mumbai, Dated: 27.09.2021 सुदीप सरकार, व.निजी सचिव / Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →