Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date of Hearing : 22.3.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.5.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M:
By way of this appeal the assessee is challenging the order of ld.CIT(A)-9, Mumbai dated 20.11.2012 for the assessment year 2009-10, wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:
1. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in adding an amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- to the income of your Petitioner company. The Learned CIT(A)-9 has erred in confirming the above addition of Rs.I,75,00,000/- to the income of your Petitioner company.
2 2. The Learned CIT (A)-9 has erred in stating that your appellant had failed to establish the credit worthiness of the share holders who had subscribed to the share capital of the petitioner company.
The Ld. A.O. has erred in ignoring the following evidences: ( i)Permanent Account of each share holder (ii)Confirmatory letter of each share holder (iii)Audited Annual Accounts of each share holder company (iv)Relevant extract of the bank account from each share holder company. (v) Acknowledgement slip for having filed the Income-tax Returns The Ld. A.O. has not contradicted the genuineness of the above mentioned documentary evidences produced by your petitioner.
The Ld. CJT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessment Order passed by ld. A.O. in this respect. Both the Ld. A.O. and the CJT(A) have erred in ignoring the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Lovely Export Pvt Ltd (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195.
The Ld. CJT(A) has erred in not appreciating the additional evidences produced by your petitioner in respect of new Tree Mercantile Co. P. Ltd. , a share holder of the assessee company. The CIT(A) has neither made any reference to this additional evidences given during the course of the hearing of the appeal.
The Ld. A.O. has erred in not taking into account the e idence given by Shri Girishchand Yadav on 23-11-2011 in the course of recording of the statement u/s. 131 of the I ncome-tax Act, 1961.
The Ld. A.O. has erred in not adjusting the Business Loss incurred by your petitioner to the extent of Rs.1,25,61,168/- again to the additions of Rs.I,79,48,630/- made under the head "Income from other sources". The Ld. A.O. has erred in stating (page 11 of the Assessment Order) that your petitioner would not be allowed to set off against the Business Loss, the additions made on account of unexplained cash credit and expenditure under the heading "Income from other-Sources". The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said additions. Both the Ld. A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) have erred in ignoring the provisions of Sec. 71 of the Income-tax ACT, 1961.
The A.O. has erred in adding two amounts of Rs. 4,35,500/- and Rs. 11,125/- on account of "Unexplained Expenditure u/s. 69C". The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same.
3 9. The order appealed against is bad in law and is against the principle of natural justice. 2. At the outset, the ld.AR submitted before us that the issue raised in this appeal in Ground of appeal no.1,2 and 8 is in respect of addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- made under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, which is now stands covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the order of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in (AY-2008-09), dated 13.8.2014 and therefore requested that the same analogy be applied to the present assessment year and also this issue be restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to decide the same on similar lines with the same direction as given by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier year.
3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us including the impugned orders and case law relied upon by the assessee. We find from the order of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra) vide para 5 of the order, the Tribunal has observed and held as under: “5. The matter is accordingly restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), who shall adjudicate the same in accordance with law per a speaking order after allowing both the parties before him to state their case with reference to all the materials being relied upon by either side. He shall do so qua each credit. It is pertinent to state that the assessee has made no case either before us or before the lower authorities in respect of the share subscriptions by other than the six companies allegedly involved in bogus billing, even as the addition under reference is for the entire sum credited. The ld. CIT(A) shall, in deciding the matter, be guided by our observations, which though cannot be regarded as conclusive, being made on the basis of the existing material on record. He shall also decide the subject matter of the Revenue’s appeal; the ld. DR contending of lack of opportunity as 4 well as of their being a qualitative change in the credit brought forward from the earlier year, referring to the decision in the case of Major Metals Ltd. (supra), where loan/s received in an earlier year stood converted to share capital during the relevant year, inasmuch as the same may have a bearing on the otherwise trite law that it is only the amount credited in the books of account that can form the basis of assessment u/s. 68, so that the sums credited in the books prior to the current year are excluded. We decided accordingly.”