INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR vs. PARTH CORPORATION, GADHINGLAJ, KOLHAPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE
BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.1131/PUN/2023 Assessment Year 2017-2018
The Income Tax Officer, Parth Corporation, Ward-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Ajja Daddi Colony, vs Tarabai Park, KOLHAPUR. GADHINGLAJ, KOLHAPUR. PIN – 416 502 PAN AAKFP0094P PIN-416 003. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Revenue : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Date of Hearing : 11.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 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.
The Revenue pleads the following substantive
grounds in the instant appeal :
2 ITA.No.1131/PUN./2023
“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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Pune, Dated 26th September, 2024
VBP/-
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3 The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.
BY ORDER,
// TRUE COPY //
Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.
