INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR vs. OREF SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MANDSAUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 23.05.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.12.2018 passed by learned ITO, Mandsaur [“AO”] u/s 143(3)/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the revenue has filed this appeal on following solitary ground:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,21,40,000/- made by the AO in assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2018 on the basis that quantum of addition has been deleted by ITAT in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2013-14, whereas the department has filed before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench on 06/06/2022 against the order of ITAT, Indore in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 vide case No. Page 1 of 9
ITO, Mandsaur vs. OREF Securities P.Ltd., Mandsaur ITA No. 259/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12
Income Tax Appeal (ITA/70/2022) registered at High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore, Bench on 13.06.2022 decision on which is still pending.”
The brief facts are such that the assessee-company filed return of
income of relevant AY 2011-12 on 24.03.12 declaring a total income of Rs.
Nil which was assessed by department. Subsequently, the AO received an
information that during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12
under consideration, the assessee had provided accommodation entries in
the form of share capital etc. to certain shell entities. After recording reasons
for reopening, the AO re-opened assessee’s case u/s 147 vide notice dated
31.03.2018 u/s 148. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices u/s
143(2)/142(1) which were duly complied by assessee. Finally, the AO
completed re-opened assessment vide order dated 26.12.18 after making an
addition of Rs. 4,21,40,000/- u/s 68 in respect of share premium received
by assessee from four (4) companies. The relevant details are as under :-
Name Address No. of Share Share Total shares capital premium allotted 1. Luxo Floams 4, Synagoge Street, 20000 200000 9800000 10000000 P.Ltd. 9th Floor, Kolkara, W.B. 700001 2. Mangal Kalash 9, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 28800 288000 14112000 14400000 Tie Up P. Ltd. Kolkata, W.B. 700013 3. Savera 8/1, Lal Bazar Stree, 18000 180000 8820000 9000000 Commotrade Kolkata, W.B. P. Ltd. 700001 4. Shree Dealcom 9, Ganesh ChandraAvenue, 19200 192000 9408000 9600000 P.Ltd. Kolkata, West Bengal, 700013 86000 860000 42140000 43000000
Aggrieved by AO’s order, the assessee carried the matter in the first
appeal. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) deleted entire addition. Aggrieved by
order of CIT(A), the Revenue has come in this appeal before us.
Page 2 of 9
ITO, Mandsaur vs. OREF Securities P.Ltd., Mandsaur ITA No. 259/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12
Ld. DR for Revenue/appellant re-iterated the para 4.3 to 4.5 of the
assessment-order passed by AO which reads as under :-
Page 3 of 9
ITO, Mandsaur vs. OREF Securities P.Ltd., Mandsaur ITA No. 259/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12
Page 4 of 9
ITO, Mandsaur vs. OREF Securities P.Ltd., Mandsaur ITA No. 259/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12
Replying to above, Ld. AR for assessee/respondent relied heavily upon
the order of CIT(A) which reads as under:
Page 5 of 9
ITO, Mandsaur vs. OREF Securities P.Ltd., Mandsaur ITA No. 259/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12
Page 6 of 9
ITO, Mandsaur vs. OREF Securities P.Ltd., Mandsaur ITA No. 259/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12
Page 7 of 9
ITO, Mandsaur vs. OREF Securities P.Ltd., Mandsaur ITA No. 259/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12
Basically, the crux of the case is such that the AO made additions
treating the amounts received by assessee from four shareholders (4), as
mentioned in foregoing paragraph, as bogus or unexplained u/s 68. But the
CIT(A) deleted those additions precisely following the order of ITAT in
assessee’s own case for AY 2013-14 where the amounts received from those
very persons were held to be genuine or explained. Ld. DR for revenue could
not contradict the case on facts but, however, emphasized the claim made
by revenue in its ground that the revenue’s quantum-appeal against the
order of ITAT for AY 2013-14 is pending before Hon'ble High Court of M.P.,
therefore the CIT(A) has erred in granting relief to assessee. We are not
inclined to accept such a plea of revenue when no change in facts of the
case are brought before us. However, as a matter of caution, we raised a
pointed question to Ld. AR as to whether all of the four (4) shareholders
involved in present appeal of AY 2011-12 before us were also involved in
assessee’s case of AY 2013-14 decided by ITAT? In reply, Ld. AR mentioned
that out of four shareholders, first one i.e. “Luxo Foams Private Limited” is
different and other three are same. When it is so, we find that the order of
CIT(A) is partly suffering from infirmity to the extent of deletion of addition of
Rs. 98,00,000/- made by AO qua the amount received by assessee from
“Luxo Foams Private Limited”. The issue of addition of Rs. 98,00,000/-
received from “Luxo Foams Private Limited” requires an apt adjudication by
CIT(A). To that extent, we are remanding matter back to CIT(A) for
Page 8 of 9
ITO, Mandsaur vs. OREF Securities P.Ltd., Mandsaur ITA No. 259/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12
adjudication afresh after giving opportunity to assessee. Other additions
deleted by CIT(A) are, however, approved and no interference is made.
Resultantly, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 07.02.2024.
Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक /Dated : 07.02.2024. CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 9 of 9
