No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune dated 27.01.2015 for the assessment year 2005-06.
2 ITA No. 480/PUN/2015 A.Y.2005 -06
The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: A search
action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Act’) was carried out at the premises of M/s. Fabtech Project &
Engineering on 31.01.2012. The assessee is a proprietor of Thermcon
Engineers and part of Fabtech Group. Statement of Shri B.A. Rupnar,
Chairman of Fabtech Group was recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act on
02.04.2012, wherein he had disclosed additional income of Rs.39 Crores
as unaccounted income of the group on account of bogus purchases. In
his statement, he declared additional income of Rs.75,35,721/- for
assessment year 2005-06 in the hands of assessee. In view of search
action, the Assessing Officer re-opened the case of assessee for assessment
year 2005-06. In response to notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed return of
income on 31.12.2012 declaring total income of Rs.43,17,016/- for
assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer held that since the
assessee in her original return of income had declared total income assessee in her original return of income had declared total income
Rs.3,03,730/-, on the basis of statement made by Shri B.A. Rupnar, the
assessee should have declared her income at Rs.78,39,451/-. However,
the assessee declared her income at Rs.43,17,016/- only. Thus, the
Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.35,22,435/- in the income declared
by assessee and assessed total income of assessee as Rs.78,39,451/-.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15.03.2013 passed u/s.
143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals). In proceedings before Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), the assessee explained that while declaring amount of
Rs.75,35,721/-, the assessee had included opening balance as on
01.04.2004 and purchases made during the year. In assessment year
2005-06, only bogus purchases debited during the relevant period i.e.
3 ITA No. 480/PUN/2015 A.Y.2005 -06
Financial Year 2004-05 could be added. The Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) accepted the contentions of assessee and deleted the addition of
Rs.35,22,435/- made during assessment proceedings. Against the findings
of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Department is in appeal before
the Tribunal.
Shri Nikhil Pathak appearing on behalf of assessee submitted at the
outset that similar additions were made by the Assessing Officer on the
basis of statement made by Shri B.A. Rupnar in the case of Steel Vision
India Pvt. Ltd. In First Appellate proceedings, Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) deleted the addition. The Department carried the matter in
appeal before Tribunal vide ITA No.488/PUN/2015 for assessment year
2005-06. The Tribunal vide order dated 26.05.2017 upheld the findings of
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
4.1 The ld. AR further stated that in the case of Shri Rajabhau Ananda
Rupnar similar additions were made by Assessing Officer in assessment
year 2005-06. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the
additions. The Department carried the matter in appeal before Tribunal
vide ITA No.654/PUN/2015 and Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal upheld the
findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the
appeal of Revenue. The ld. A.R. prayed that since the Co-ordinate Bench of
Tribunal has confirmed the action of Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) in deleting the additions made in similar fashion in the cases of
group concerns/members, the addition made by Assessing Officer in the
present case may also be deleted.
4 ITA No. 480/PUN/2015 A.Y.2005 -06
On the other hand, Shri Ajay Modi representing the Department
vehemently supported the findings of Assessing Officer and prayed for
reversing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld.
DR submitted that it is not emanating from records as to whether the
amount offered by Shri B.A. Rupnar is inclusive of opening balance as on
01.04.2004 on account of bogus purchases or it is an afterthought to
reduce tax liability. However, the ld. DR fairly admitted that in the cases
of group entities, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal confirmed the action
of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting such additions.
Both sides heard. Orders of the Authorities below perused. The
solitary issue raised by Department in appeal is against the action of
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of
Rs.35,22,435/- i.e. difference between additional income declared in the
statement made by Shri B.A. Rupnar and additional income offered in statement made by Shri B.A. Rupnar and additional income offered in
return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. We find that in
the cases of other group concern/members, similar additions were made
by the Assessing Officer. In the First Appellate Proceedings, the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the additions on the
premise that additional income offered on account of bogus purchases
includes opening balance as on 01.04.2004. The Tribunal has upheld the
findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the cases of other
group concern viz. DCIT Vs. Steel Vision India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and DCIT
Vs. Shri Rajabhau Ananda Rupnar (supra) in deleting the additions. Since
the facts in the present case are identical, we find no reason to take a
different view. Accordingly, the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) are upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
5 ITA No. 480/PUN/2015 A.Y.2005 -06
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 24th day of January, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (डी. क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (�वकास अव�थी/Vikas Awasthy) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; �दनांक/ Dated : 24th January, 2018. SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant. 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-12, Pune. 4. The CIT (Central) Pune. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “ए” ब�च, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल/ Guard File. 6.
// True Copy // आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
�नजी स�चव/Private Secretary आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण, पुणे/ ITAT, Pune.