Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI K.N. CHARY & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM
This appeal by the Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi-110055, dated 19.03.2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The grounds of appeal are as under:
“1. The CIT(A)-30 has erred in law as also in the facts and circumstances of the case to hold the assessee company as a bogus /shell /paper /conduit /dummy company created for providing accommodation entries whereas the assessee Page 1 of 4
ITA No.-4876/Del/2015. Attractive Finlease Pvt. Ltd. company is being assessed regularly for the last two decades and the Income Tax Department has been accepting it as a genuine company, and in no assessment other than the present assessment, the Department has ever alleged it of giving any accommodation entries.
The CIT(A) -30 has erred in law as also in the facts and circumstances of the case to hold the funds advances as ‘advance against land purchase’ as accommodation entry, when the source of these funds in the hands of the assessee company has duly been accepted by the Income Tax Department in the assessments completed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2013.
The CIT(A)-30 has erred in law as also in the facts and circumstances of the case to hold that amount, if any, received on finalization of arbitration award would be taxed in the hands of the assessee “ as pr provision of law”, when there is no provision of law, as such, which may enable the Department to tax the refund back of one’s own money.
3.1 The direction of Ld. CIT(Appeals) that the award, if decided in favour of the assessee, would be taxed in the hands of the assessee, is self contradictory, since at one hand, he gives a clear cut-finding that MOU is a colourable device and that the funds belong to BPTP group companies and in the same breath, he talks of taxing the same funds in the hands of the assessee on the basis of a future even, which may or may not occur.
3.2 The CIT(A)-30 has erred in law as also in the facts and circumstances of the case to pre-decide the issue and give his advance finding on award of arbitration, which is clearly a future event, which may turn out to be in the favour of disfavor of any of the parties to the arbitration.
The appellant craves leave to add and alter grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
(2) At the time of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel for Assessee informed that the
assessee did not wish to press this appeal; and that the assessee wished to withdraw Page 2 of 4
ITA No.-4876/Del/2015. Attractive Finlease Pvt. Ltd. this appeal. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) did
not object to withdrawal of the appeal by assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed.
(3) In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09th day of January, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (K.N. CHARY) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 09.01.2019 Pooja/-