VIMAL YARN MILLS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3647/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 November 2016AY 2004-054 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted an inconsistency in the entities from whom the share application money was allegedly received. Due to this factual discrepancy, the matter was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added ₹9 lakh as unexplained cash credit, treating share application money from two entities as bogus. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition, but referred to different entities than those identified by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of ₹9 lakh as unexplained cash credit was justified, given the conflicting identification of the entities providing the share application money.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Purohit
For Respondent: Shri Sachhidanand Dubey

Aforesaid appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 23rd March 2016, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–9 Mumbai, for the assessment year 2004–05.

2.

The only issue raised in the present appeal is in relation to addition of an amount of ` 9 lakh as unexplained cash credit.

3.

Brief facts are, the assessee is a company. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on the basis of material

2 M/s. Vimal Yarn Mills India Pvt. Ltd. available on record found that the share application money of ` 9 lakh claimed to have been received from two entities viz. Buniyad Chemical Ltd and Talent Infoway Ltd., are bogus transactions as these two entities are only providing accommodation entries. Accordingly, he treated the amount of ` 9 lakh as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee challenged addition before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), he also confirmed the addition.

4.

The learned Authorised Representative specifically referring to the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in Para– 5.3.6.2 of the order submitted, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming the addition has related has to M/s. Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Unilezer Ventures Pvt. Ltd. He submitted, the assessee in the relevant previous year had never entered into any transactions with these two entities. Therefore, finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the facts on record. He, therefore, submitted the matter requires re–examination by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

Learned Departmental Representative has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for re–examining the issue.

3 M/s. Vimal Yarn Mills India Pvt. Ltd.

6.

We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is observed, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment had stated that in the relevant previous year assessee had received share application money of ` 9 lakh from Buniyad Chemical Ltd and Talent Infoway Ltd., whereas, learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the paragraph referred to above has observed that the amount of ` 9 lakh was received from M/s. Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Unilezer Ventures Pvt. Ltd. It is the specific plea of the assessee before us that it has no dealing with the above two concerns referred to by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the inconsistency in facts relating to receipt of share application money of ` 9 lakh and the submissions of the assessee in this regard, we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.11.2016

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →