ITO WD 1(1), KALYAN vs. CHARDHAM TRADING P.LTD, BHIWANDI

These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the order(s) of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, all dated 24-02-2017. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, except the amounts mentioned : 2 : 3294, 3296 & 3298/Mum/2017 therein, these appeals are heard together and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, appeal in ITA No.3294/Mum/2017 is discussed here under:

The only issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of CIT(A), as made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards unsecured loans of Rs.1,15,06,840/- and another addition of Rs.1,55,27,426/-, made on account of unexplained creditors.

The facts in brief are that, assessee filed return of income during the year 27-09-2012, declaring income at NIL. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notice was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee did not attend the assessment proceedings despite several opportunities and therefore, the AO framed ex-parte order u/s.144 of the Act, making additions of Rs.1,15,06,840/- on account of un-secured loans and Rs.1,55,53,429/- in respect of Sundry Creditors.

In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of assessee, after calling a report from AO. During the remand proceedings before the AO, assessee furnished all the evidences and details, which were duly verified by the AO. However, AO decided that since the assessee has not produced all the relevant information at the time of original assessment, it cannot be taken into consideration at this time.

After hearing both the parties and perusing material on record, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of assessee partly, after calling the remand report from the AO. In the said remand report, AO stated that assessee has filed all the details qua unsecured sundry creditors, however, : 3 : 3294, 3296 & 3298/Mum/2017 stated these could not be allowed to be filed at this stage as the assessee has failed to file these evidences in the original assessment proceedings. However, CIT(A) specifically noted that the genuineness of the unsecured loans was proved by the assessee during the course of remand proceedings and similarly in respect of sundry creditors of Rs.1,55,27,426/-, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the genuineness of the creditors have been accepted, after due verification thereof. We further note that the AO also submitted second report before CIT(A), submitting therein that assessee-company had purchased equity shares of M/s.Asmeeta Infratech Private Limited, Kanchan Developers Private Limited and from Malav Shah. It was stated in the said report that though the shares had been purchased, the same are not supported by the valuation report. By referring to the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and stated that the issue of applicability of this section could not be verified. However, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of assessee, by holding that there is no need to go into the technical issue at this stage and thus allowed the appeal. After perusing the evidences on record and rival submissions, we do not find any infirmity or defect in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly uphold the same by dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. , 3296/Mum/17 & 3298/Mum/17:

As far as these appeals are concerned, the issue and facts are common in these appeals also as decided by us in accordingly following our decision in ITA 3294/Mum/17, we uphold the order of CIT(A) by : 4 : ITA Nos. 3292, 3294, 3296 & 3298/Mum/2017 dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue in these appeals. Hence, these appeals of Revenue are also dismissed.

To sum-up, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed.