Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.
These are the two appeals filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi dated 31.12.2012 for the Assessment Year 1996- 97. First appeal is against the deletion of the addition made by the Ld. CIT – A on account of investment in shares of M/s Kuber Floritech Pvt Ltd and 2nd against the deletion of the penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the act on the same addition levied by the Ld. assessing officer. Therefore, both these appeals are disposed of by this common order.
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in 1. The ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 17184100/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of investment in shares of M/s. Kuber Floritech Ltd.” Page | 1
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in :- “1. The ld CIT(A) in deleting the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 6873640/-.”
4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company who filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 144250/– on 01/12/1997. The original assessment in the case was completed under section 143 (3) on 31/3/1999 at an income of Rs. 18386507/–. The assessment order was challenged before the coordinate bench who has set aside the issue on which the addition of Rs. 17184100/– was made on account of investment in the shares of the above company and restored this issue to the file of the Ld. assessing officer for fresh adjudication after examining and verifying all relevant particulars and details connected to the issue. Pursuance to the order of the coordinate bench the Ld. AO issued notice to the assessee however none attended before him and therefore he repeated the addition of Rs. 1838 6507/– and order dated 30/12/2009 was passed under section 144 read with section 143 (3) read with section 254 of the income tax act. The assessee challenged the above addition before the Ld. CIT – A. The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT – A that the investment in the shares of the above company were duly appearing in the audited balance sheet of the assessee as on 31/3/1996. Therefore when the investment is appearing in the audited accounts the source of the investment is automatically stands proved being recorded in Page | 2 the books. It was further submitted that it is not the case where the investment is not appearing in the balance sheet. It was further contended that provisions of section 69 is not applicable since the said section is applicable only where the investments are not recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee further explained that the complete investment was made through account payee cheques from the regular bank account of the assessee namely Oriental bank of commerce New Delhi and complete details were provided for. The Ld. CIT – A called for the remand report from the assessing officer since the assessee has made an application under rule 46A of the income tax rules 1962. The Ld. assessing officer submitted a report which was given to the assessee for submitting rejoinder. The assessee submitted a rejoinder and further reiterated the fund flow statement submitted. The Ld. CIT A noted that the AO has not given any comment on the specific issue which was to examine the fund flow statement of the dates on which the investments were made therefore it was noted by him that the coordinate benches also stated that the assessee had shown loan obtained by the bank during the year in which investment in shares of the above company were made. in view thereof he find no reason to disbelieve that the appellant has not made the investment of Rs. 1 718 4100 in shares of Kuber Floritech P Ltd. He therefore deleted the addition. Therefore, against the order of the first appellate authority revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. departmental representative 1st applied for the adjournment, 5. which was rejected as there was no specific reason shown but only mentioned that that the records are required to be verified. Thereafter Page | 3 the Ld. departmental representative vehemently relied upon the order of the Ld. assessing officer and submitted that when the assessee has not submitted any details before the assessing officer there is no reason to delete the above addition. He further submitted that merely because the investments have been recorded in the books of accounts and the audited balance sheet without verification of the books of accounts it cannot be said that the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee.
The Ld. authorized representative relied upon the order of the Ld. Commissioner of income tax – A stating that when the assessee has shown the fund flow statement as well as disclosed the investment in the balance sheet there is no reason to hold that such investments are not recorded in the books of accounts. He submitted that the Ld. CIT – A has recorded the proper reasons for admission of the additional evidence as well as called for the remand report of the assessing officer and rejoinder to the assessee. He submitted that there is no reason to suspect the books of accounts of the assessee as they are audited and a proper fund flow was submitted. In view of this he submitted that the addition has been rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT – A.
We have carefully considered the rival contention and per used the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. CIT – A has deleted the whole addition holding assessee has shown the investment in the balance sheet. Further, the fund flow statement was alos provided showing the sources of the funds for making investment in those shares. The books of accounts of the assessee company are audited. Further the investments are also routed through the bank account of the assessee which is also Page | 4 shown in the books of accounts. Therfore there is no reason to say that these are unaccounted investments of the assessee. Ld. departmental representative could not find out any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT – A. Further the Ld. CIT – A has deleted the whole addition as the investment has been recorded in the books of accounts and the assessee has submitted a complete fund flow statement there from the money has come and the source of investment made in the above company for shares. Further, the transactions have been entered into by the assessee through Oriental bank of commerce, New Delhi branch that is also in the books of accounts of the assessee. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT – A in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 718 4100/– made by the Ld. assessing officer on account of investment in shares of M/s Kuber Floritech P Ltd. In the result, the solitary ground of the appeal of the revenue does not survive and hence dismissed.
In the result for assessment year 96 – 97 filed by the revenue is dismissed.
The Ld. assessing officer is with respect to the deletion of the penalty levied under section 271 (1)( c) of the income tax act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 68,73,640 on the addition made by the Ld. assessing officer in investment of shares of Kuber Flortich P Ltd. As we’ve alread confirmed the deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT appeal of unaccounted investment in shares of the above company, the appeal of the revenue against the deletion of the penalty by the Ld. CIT – A does not survive as the addition itself has been deleted.