ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SIDH AUTOMOBILES LTD., NEW DELHI

The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 09.06.2015.

In this case, the notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 04.03.2013 after recording due satisfaction. The assessee filed copy of the return vide letter dated 18.03.2013. The assessment has been completed on 26.03.2013. At ground no. 4 the revenue has taken objection to the observation to the ld. CIT (A) that the assessee has not been provided adequate opportunity without appreciating the fact that the return was filed by the assessee on 18.03.2013 just few days before the limitation date of 31.03.2013. We find that the revenue has not appreciated the fact that the notice has been issued by the revenue on 04.03.2013 while the search on the Triveni Group

Ground No. 1 & 5 pertains to deletion of Rs.4,54,950/- being 50% of the total expenses claimed in P&L account. Ground No.2 pertains to disallowance of Rs.7,500/- and ground no.3 pertains to disallowance of Rs.4,308/-on account of claim of exempt income on sale of shares. This is not a case where the assessment has got abated owing to the provisions of Chapter XIV-B. The ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition on the grounds that the addition do not emanate from seized material in view of established case laws in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (SC). Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) on these grounds.

Ground No. 6 pertains to invocation to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. At the outset, we find that no new evidences were accepted by the ld. CIT (A) during the proceedings. Regarding the deletion of amount of Rs.6,00,000/- found in the cash book, the ld. CIT (A) has clearly given a finding that there have been withdrawals of Rs.6,00,000/- from HDFC Bank a/c No. 0103 maintained with Lajpat Nagar Branch on 18.03.2010. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this ground.

Ground No. 7 relates to the advances given by the assessee of Rs.212,88,440/- to majorly to five parties from whom the assessee has received interest. The same have been 3 Sidh Automobiles Ltd. reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee under head “loans given”. This effectively shows that the Assessing Officer is trying to verify the assets reflected in the balance sheet. This could be a futile exercise. Taxing of a bogus liability may lead to collection of revenue in the presence of tangible asset, however, law hasn’t evolved to tax bogus asset. There has been no evidences by the way of seized material or any other evidences to prove or to lead any credence that, the assessee has raised bogus debtors to be recovered at a later date. Since, the instance case is not so, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this ground.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/09/2019).