ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S A.R. LEASING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 284/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 November 2019AY 2009-104 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition made under Section 143(3) was already deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, and the same addition was repeated under Section 153A, it would not interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 6,99,60,000/- made under Section 68. The addition was initially made under Section 143(3) and later repeated under Section 153A.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits is sustainable when similar additions made in a prior assessment year have been deleted by the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Ms. Sushma ChowlaDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 01.10.2019Pronounced: 05.11.2019

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 20.10.2016.

2. Following ground has been raised by the revenue: “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,99,60,000/- made u/s 68, without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of transaction.

2.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed appreciate the facts that M/s Adhyay Equipref Pvt. Ltd. has opening balance at Rs. 48357/- as on 3.4.2008 & amount of Rs. 11,99,75,000/- was credited between 3.4.2008 to 8.4.2008. Out of the above amount Rs. 6,00,00,000/- was paid for the share application money to M/s

2 A.R. Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Anshika Investment Pvt. Ltd. both companies being sister concerns.

3.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that similar patterns of banking transaction have been observed in the bank account of the other subscribing entities i.e. M/s Rupali Sarees, M/s Jagdamba Designers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Anchor Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Khusboo Bearing Pvt. Ltd. It is beyond imagination as to why any prudent business entity would invest in any concern after paying such huge premium.

a) M/s Rupali Saree Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 24,80,000/- b) M/s Jagdamba Designers Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 24,80,000/- c) M/s Anchor Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 30,00,000/- d) M/s Khusboo Bearing Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 20,00,000/- Total Rs. 99,60,000/-

4. That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.

5.

That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”

3. All the grounds are inter-related.

4.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. The addition of Rs. 6,99,60,000/- was earlier made in the order passed u/s 143(3). The same order has been appeal before the ITAT and the additions made thereof already stands deleted by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No.2263/Del/2013.

6.

The Assessing Officer has repeated the same additions in the order passed u/s 153A. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted these

3 A.R. Leasing Pvt. Ltd. additions as these additions stands deleted by the ITAT in ITA No.2263/Del/2013. Since, the addition made u/s 143(3) has been repeated in the order passed u/s 153A and keeping in view the fact that the addition made u/s 143(3) stands deleted, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A).

7.

Similarly, the issue of addition related to Section 14A has been send back to the Assessing Officer by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, in ITA No.2263/Del/2013. Since these are repetitive additions made in the order passed u/s 143(3) as well as 153A, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/11/2019

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →