INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR vs. PARTH CORPORATION, GADHINGLAJ, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1131/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 September 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)6 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's arguments, noting that the CIT(A) did not admit additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A. The Tribunal also observed no cash deposits were made that would trigger Section 69, as the assessee had merely rolled over matured deposits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted an addition of Rs. 9,46,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without proper opportunity for rebuttal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A, and whether the addition under Section 69 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 11.09.2024Pronounced: 26.09.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.

This Revenue’s appeal, arises against the order of the learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1055279626(1), dated 21.08.2023, in proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.1131/PUN./2023

1.

“The Ld.CIT-(Appeals) erred in accepting the self-serving

documents not corroborated by evidence and which had not stood the test of enquiries in assessment proceedings.

2. The Ld.CIT-(Appeals) erred in not allowing the AO to examine the additional evidence admitted by him as per

the provisions u/s.46A(3) of the LT Rules 1962.

3. The Ld.CIT-(Appeals) erred in admitting the evidence filed

before him in to consideration without any opportunity in rebuttal to the assessing officer which the respondent did not furnish during the assessment proceeding.”

3.

Both the learned representatives very fairly submit that the Revenue’s instant appeal seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action making section 69 read with Section-115BBE unexplained investments addition of Rs.9,46,00,000/-; in the course of assessment dated 17.03.2022; as reversed in the lower appellate discussion as follows :

3 ITA.No.1131/PUN./2023

4 ITA.No.1131/PUN./2023

4.

It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue seeks to buttress the point in respect of it’s second substantive ground that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in deleting the impugned addition after admitting assessee’s additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 and therefore, we ought to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer so as to enable him to carry-out necessary factual verification regarding the same.

5.

Learned counsel on the other hand strongly supports the CIT(A)’s above extracted findings deleting the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee had never filed any additional evidence which could attract rule Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. He invited our attention to the corresponding section 151 approval by the competent authority to the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasoning inter alia, indicating that the relevant bank account details duly formed part of those records. Mr.Pathak submits that the assessee had merely explained source of it’s impugned deposits to roll-over of all the corresponding accounts opened

5 ITA.No.1131/PUN./2023 in earlier assessment years, which inturn, got matured in the previous year 2016-17. And also that there are no cash deposits made in assessee’s bank account which further strengthens his case that the learned Assessing Officer had not examined the relevant records before making this addition forming subject matter of adjudication before us.

6.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions and find no substance in Revenue’s foregoing arguments. This is for the precise reason that not only it has failed to prove the admission of any additional evidence by the learned CIT(A)-NFAC in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963, but also we do not see any cash deposits made in the relevant previous year so as to trigger section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act once the assessee had merely rolled over it’s deposits after maturity (supra). We further wish to re-emphasize here that there is no other ground raised before us at the Revenue’s behest which could lead us to a different conclusion than that noticed by the CIT(A)-NFAC in his impugned lower appellate discussion.

Rejected accordingly.

7.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

6 ITA.No.1131/PUN./2023

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.09.2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →