ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GTX REALTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - 4, New Delhi dated 8.04.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.

The solitary of the grievance of the Revenue reads as under:

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of construction of residential houses, commercial buildings, flats and factory’s sheds and buildings in or outside of India and to act as builders, colonizers and civil and constructional contractors.

During the course of assessment proceedings and on perusal of the balance sheet, details of share application money were called for and the assessee , vide its letter dated 03.12.2014, has stated that the share application money is outstanding as per the details given below:

The Assessing Officer made enquiries from the parties by issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer did not receive any plausible reply from M/s Urban Projects India Ltd and Pragati Enterprises. The Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon it by provisions of section 68 of the Act and completed assessment by making addition of Rs. 2.71 crores.

The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and once again explained the genuineness of the transactions. It was strongly contended that the assessee has discharged the initial onus cast upon it by provisions of section 68 of the Act.

After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) held as under:

Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us.

The ld. DR vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions without examining the basics of the lender companies Urbana Projects India Pvt Ltd and Pragati Enterprises. The ld. DR further stated that the complete bank statements were also not examined.

Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has furnished all the necessary details before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer chose not to examine the same.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the Assessing Officer sought information from the assessee in respect of two companies namely, Urban Project India Pvt Ltd and Pragati Enterprises. It is equally true that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions without examining the basic financials of the two concerns. We are of the considered view that the impugned issue needs examination at the assessment stage. We, accordingly, restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish the financial statements of Urban Project India Pvt Ltd and Pragati Enterprises alongwith complete bank statements with their returns of income and the Assessing Officer is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh as per provisions of law and after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.