Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
(Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mukesh Narpatlal Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-201, Dev Archan Flats, Opp. Ward-2(1)(2), Kochrab Ashram, B/h. Bony Travels, Ahmedabad Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007 [PAN No.AMKPS9584P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sudhir Mehta, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-DR & Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, S.R.-DR 17.10.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2024 O R D E R
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 26.02.2024 passed for A.Y. 2011-12.
The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and fats to confirm the additions made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the act of Rs. 96,67,26,529/- on protective basis. 2. The Learned CIT(A) and Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the appellant simply made introduction to all the three parties in the bank to open an account. The appellant neither the director nor the proprietor of any of the entities.
Mukesh Narpatlal Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2– 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law to confirm the assessment order which is bad in law and on facts and against the natural justice.
4. The Learned ITO has initiated penalty proceedings 271(1)(c) when there is no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is submitted that the additions made in the assessment order cannot be held as concealment of income.
5. The appellant craves leaves to add, alter and or to amend all or any of the grounds of the appeal.
Even otherwise, the impugned orders are illegal, bad in law.”
At the outset, both the parties have not disputed the fact that the addition in the case of the assessee has been made on protective basis. The appeal of the assessee for the earlier Assessment Year 2010-11 stands adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in for A.Y. 20101-11 vide order dated 21.02.2024. It was submitted that the issue involved in A.Y. 2011-12 is similar to the issue which stands adjudicated by the order of Coordinate Bench of the ITAT. Hence, for the sake of ready reference the relevant part of the above mentioned order is reproduced as under:
7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer made the addition prima facie and with the main reason that the assessee was the introducer in the bank accounts opening form for these three entities, but for M/s.Lunia Finlease Ltd., it was categorically found that the account was opened on the application filed by the said three Directors of the said companies. In case(s) of M/s.Shrichal Corporation and M/s. Ramdev Marketing, the same was applied for opening of bank accounts and PAN Card, Driving Licence and Election Card have been submitted for KYC documents. Shri Mukesh N. Shah, i.e. assessee has signed as introducer for opening the bank account only and the Assessing Officer, at no point of time, has pointed out that the sale amount was, in fact, of the assessee’s amount which is lying in these three accounts. The e-mail submitted by the Ld.DR at the time of hearing categorically mentions that the demand in case of M/s.Shrichal Corporation was reflected in the system for AY 2011-12 for unexplained credits in the bank account. As regards AY 2010-11 is concerned, no records were found. Similarly, in case of M/s.Ramdev Marketing no demand of the assessment was found, but this will not prove the case of the Revenue that the assessee is liable to the additions which are actually the additions relating to those two parties. The Department, at no point of time, has pointed out as to the credit entries appearing in all these three entities are belonging to the assessee and, therefore, protective addition cannot be held as substantive addition when the Department has not taken proper cognizance in the cases, where the substantive addition should have been done. The CIT(A) has categorically made the observation that the Assessing Officer has no evidence whatsoever that the accounts of these three companies belonged to assessee. In fact, where there was a doubt, the CIT(A) has categorically made protective addition to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of M/s.Lunia Finlease Ltd. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the absence of any change in the factual matrix and the legal proposition, following the earlier order of the ITAT the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 17/10/2024
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 17/10/2024 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,