Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
1. The captioned appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2008- 09 assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-47 [CIT(A)] order dated 02/12/2014 qua deletion of certain additions u/s 68, deletion of addition against unaccounted receipts on sale of certain shares and admission of additional evidences as per Rule 46A.
Briefly stated, the assessee, being resident individual, was subjected to an assessment u/s 143(3) / 153A pursuant to search operations conducted on 06/10/2010 in the case of ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. and its group concerns. The assessee, along with many other persons, was also covered in the search operations and was saddled with a notice u/s 153A pursuant to which she filed return of income for impugned AY on 05/10/2012 declaring total income of Rs.39,46,634/-. The original return of income was filed on 18/11/2008. In the said assessment, the assessee suffered addition u/s 68 for Rs.29,96,455/- on account of unconfirmed loans and another addition of Rs.152.50 Lacs towards unaccounted receipt on sale of certain shares. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged, inter-alia, both the additions with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 02/12/2014 wherein the addition u/s 68 were deleted on factual matrix of the case and on the basis of evidences submitted by the assessee. Similarly, the other addition of Rs.152.50 Lacs was deleted for want of evidences and Suresh Gaggar Assessment Year 2008-09 by noting that no cogent material against the same was available with the AO. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for Assessee [AR] drew our attention to the fact that certain other persons were also covered in the same search operations and saddled with similar disallowances. However, similar issues in all those cases have been decided by Tribunal in favor of respective assessee by way of dismissal of revenue’s appeal as per the following details:-
No. Name of Case of AYs Order
DCIT Vs. Jyoti Bright Bar Pvt. ITA No. 2832 & 08/06/2016 2009-10 & 2010- Ltd. 2833/Mum/2014 11 2. DCIT Vs. Deven J.Mehta ITA No. 6058/Mum/2014 27/10/2016 2008-09 3. DCIT Vs. Indra Gaggar ITA No. 808,1294,1295,1296 30/11/2016 2006-07, 2007-08, & 809/M/2015 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 4. DCIT Vs. Ramakant Gaggar ITA No.1287 to 21/12/2016 2006-07 to 2009- 1290/Mum/2015 10 5. DCIT Vs. Bhuta Investment P. ITA No. 1291/Mum/2015 16/03/2017 2008-09 Ltd. The copies of respective orders have been placed in the paper book. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert the same and also could not distinguish the case on factual matrix in any manner. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. A perusal of above orders lends strength to the arguments of Ld. AR that the issue stands settled in favor of the assessee. We find that the addition u/s 68 deleted by Ld. CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal by following jurisdictional Bombay High Court’s decision rendered in CIT Vs. Murli Agro Products Limited [2014 49 taxmann.com 172] and All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No.1292/M/2015 Suresh Gaggar Assessment Year 2008-09 [2012 137 ITD 287 SB Mumbai] on the premises that with respect to assessments which have attained finality on the date of search operations, additions could be made only qua search material and not otherwise. The deletion of other addition by Ld. CIT(A) has been confirmed by noting that there was no justification for addition by disregarding the actual sale consideration without bringing on record any cogent material to support the same. 6. Therefore, we see no reason to deviate from the consistent stand taken by co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal, there being no material change in facts or circumstances. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of these decisions, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss revenue’s appeal. 7. In nutshell, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05th May, 2017.