Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the ITO, Haridwar against order of the ld CIT(A), Dehradun dated 27-2-2015, raising the following Grounds of appeal:- “1. That the ld CIT(A) has erred in law, and on facts in admitting additional evidences.
2. That the ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by allowing the relief of Rs. 52,00,992/- on account of capital introduced by the partners holding that the capital introduced by the partners of the firm were explained without appreciating the fact that the copy of accounts, balance sheet & ITR of the partner company were not produced before the Assessing Officer and ignored the fact that the Director of the one partner company cannot be held as partner of the firm.
3. That the ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in allowing a relief of Rs. 52,45,130/- on account of unsecured loans holding that identities of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions were proved.
4. That the order of the ld CIT(A) be set aside ant that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
2. The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a firm engaged in manufacturing of disposal plastic glass. It filed its return of income on 15- 10-2018 declaring income of Rs. 2620/-. The ld AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28-3-2018, wherein addition of Rs. 52,00,992/- was Page | 1 made on account of capital of the partners and further addition of Rs. 79,45,130/- on account of unsecured loan was made. The Ld CIT (A) deleted the addition of capital of the partners fully and on account of unsecured loan partly. Therefore revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The first ground of appeal is against the admission of the additional evidence admitted by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings.
4. The ld DR referred to para No. 9 of the order of the ld CIT(A) wherein certain additional evidence are admitted. He further referred to para No. 8 wherein also certain additional evidences were admitted. He referred to para No. 11, 12 and 13 of the order where certain other additional evidence were admitted. He vehemently referred to para No. 17 of the order of the ld CIT(A) where the additional evidences were admitted. He therefore, submitted that the ld CIT(A) without recording the reasons as specified under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 has admitted the additional evidences for almost all the additions.
5. Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee therefore, the issues are decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that the ld CIT(A) remanded the whole matter of the additional evidence to the file of the ld AO and his remand report was also considered in para No. 19 of the order. In view of this we do not find any merit in the first ground of appeal of the revenue, hence same is dismissed.
7. The second ground of appeal is against deletion of the addition of Rs 5200992/- on account of capital introduced by the partners.
8. The ld AO referred to partnership deed executed on 03.07.2009 having two partners and first partner Shri Narendra Singh has introduced Rs. 4800992/- and the second partner Shri Sanjay Chauhan has introduced Rs. 4 lacs as capital of the firm. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish the necessary details such as copy of the return, balance sheet, bank statement of the partners which was not furnished and therefore the ld AO issued notices u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee submitted reply on 20-3-2018 stating that the ITR and bank statement are already submitted. However, ld AO stated that the assessee has not filed the complete details in the form of complete return, bank statements, hence the addition of Rs. 5200992/- was made. Before the ld CIT(A) the assessee submitted the complete details with respect to both the partners. Ld CIT(A) in paragraph No. 19 stating that complete details are available now against which the ld AO has submitted the remand report wherein nothing was found to be against the assessee. He further noted that The assessee submitted the complete details which both the partners have deposited the money through Sidhant Promoters Pvt Ltd and Shri Ram Wati Corporation. The copies of the bank account, computation of income, income tax return and the bank statement was submitted. Therefore, On this basis the addition was deleted.
The ld DR relied upon the order of the ld AO.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition after the ld AO confirmed the same in his remand report that he has verified the sum of Rs. 48 lacs from the two bank accounts which was already been filed before him during the assessment proceedings. It is further stated that Rs. 4 lacs were also made by the partner as investment was also verified. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the above addition. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed.
Ground No. 3 of the appeal is with respect to the relief of Rs. 5245120/- allowed by the ld CIT(A) out of the total additions of Rs. 7945130/- made by the ld AO. The fact shows that the during the year on examination of balance sheet. The AO found that assessee has unsecured loan from 12 accounts amounting to Rs. 7945130/-. Ld AO asked the assessee to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of the loans. Ld AO made the addition of Rs. 7945130/-. On appeal before the ld CIT(A) the assessee submitted certain additional evidence and same were verified by the ld CIT(A) and after that he granted the relief of Rs. 5245130/- holding that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors are proved to that extent. The revenue is an appeal before us.
Ld DR supported the order of the ld AO.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the ld CIT(A) from paragraph Nos. 25 to 30. On perusal of these