ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. BAKLIWAL HOLDING PVT LTD, WEST BENGAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9101/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 April 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that no incriminating material was brought on record concerning the share capital or loans. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly applied settled legal propositions, and the DR failed to demonstrate any factual or evidential error.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO. The AO had added Rs.4 crores in AY 2010-11 and Rs.96,33,075/- plus Rs.2.90 crores in AY 2011-12, alleging unsecured loans and share capital from bogus/shell companies following a search operation and reassessment under section 153C. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, finding no incriminating material.

What were the issues?

Whether additions for unsecured loans and share capital from alleged bogus/shell companies, made after a search and reassessment under section 153C, are sustainable in the absence of incriminating material.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR
Hearing: 26.02.2024Pronounced: 30.04.2024

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld.

1.

ITAs No.9101 & 9102/Del/2019 AO, for short). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under:- who Appeal No. & Date AO who Section of the passed the of order of the passed the IT Act under order CIT(A) assessment which the AO order & Date passed the of order order 9101/Del/2019 CIT(A)-30, 274/18-19/4175 ACIT, Central 153C/143(3) New Delhi Date 24.09.2019 Cir.30, New Delhi, date: 27.12.2018 - - - 9102/Del/2019 Do - 275/18-19/4176 date Do - Do - 24.09.2019

2.

Heard and perused the record. The effective ground is the challenge to the deletion of Rs.4 crores in AY 2010-11 and Rs.96,33,075/- in AY 2011-12 by ld.CIT(A) which the AO had made on account of alleged unsecured loans from bogus/shell companies. As a matter of fact, a search and seizure operation was carried out in Shalimar group of cases on 18.06.2015 and, on the basis of some alleged incriminating evidences, reassessment was opened u/s 153C of the Act. The AO examined the receipt of Rs.4 crores by issuing 40000 shares to ten different private limited companies in AY 2010-11. Further, in AY 2011-12, the AO examined the loan of Rs.2.90 crores from M/s Topgrain Distributors Pvt. Ltd. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation and evidences of the assessee. Further, notices u/s 133(6) could not be served on these companies. Therefore, he made the addition. The CIT(A) was satisfied that none of the documents indicate anything incriminating relating to share capital raised by the assessee and even in the satisfaction note, there was no specific reference to any 2

ITAs No.9101 & 9102/Del/2019 incriminating material. The ld. DR could not canvass before us anything on the basis of any material or facts to show that the opinion formed by the CIT(A) was incorrect or erroneous on any factual aspect or appreciation of the evidences. The CIT(A) has followed the settled proposition of law on the basis of several judicial decisions including CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Del) which has been further accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 and DCIT vs. UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 441. The grounds raised have no substance.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →