INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MRS. MANISHA CHIMBALKAR, PUNE

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

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/-.

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.

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

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.

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

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.