Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.163/Chd/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07
M/s Unicorn Impex Ltd. Vs. The DCIT Defense Colony, C-4, Ludhiana Nabha Road, Malerkotla
PAN No. AAACU4062D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Shri. Atul Goyal Revenue By : Shri. Yoginder Mittal
Date of hearing : 12/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24/07/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of
the Ld. CIT(A)-2 dt. 29/09/2017.
In the present appeal the Assessee has raised the following grounds:
Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding an addition of Rs. 285000/- made by five share holders in shares of the assessee company. All these five persons except one Late Sh. Parminder Kumar have confirmed their respective share investment in response to information sought under provisions of section 133(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. Late Sh. Parminder Kumar could not furnish information under section 133(6) due to his sad demise on 08/01/2008. 2. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate documentary evidence in support of investments in shares filed by the share holders.
Brief facts of the case are that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT vide order dt.
29/12/2012 remanded the matter to examine the identity, creditworthiness and
genuinity of the share applicants. After examination and based on the Remand
Report of the Assessing Officer. The share application received by the following
persons have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).
Sl. Name Amount(in Rs.) Date of Investment No. 1. Mr. K.K. Pillai 60,000/- 19/12/2005 2. Mrs. Sudha Kumari w/o Mr. K.K. 50,000/- 19/12/2005 Pillai 3. Mrs. Nancy Goyal 50,000/- 06/01/2006 4. Mr. Nirmal Kumar 50,000/- 15/02/2006 5. Mrs. Parminder Kaur 75,000/ -
Before us, the Ld. AR argued that :
4.1 Mr. K.K. Pillai -: They have duly submitted information as sought under
section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was argued that the applicant has
been working in the Govt. of Kerala and retired in the year 2007 and that the
applicant was earning Rs. 85,000/- salary per month and the investments were
made out of the regular savings from his salary income.
4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the share holder on the
grounds that the documentary evidence in support of source of investments
have not been furnished.
4.3 We have gone through the documents placed before us, the identity,
credibility of the share holder can be said to have been proved. As the
applicant was earning Rs. 85,000/- salary even 1/10th of the salary is deemed to
be the savings of the applicant, it can be well considered to be genuine.
Mrs. Sudha Kumari w/o K.K. Pillai -: They have duly submitted information as
sought under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was argued that the
investments were made out of the regular savings and out of tuition income
and from her Stridhan.
5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the share holder on the
grounds that the documentary evidence in support of source of investments
have not been furnished.
5.2 We have gone through the material placed before us, the identity,
credibility of the share holder can be said to have been proved. As the
applicant’s investment of Rs. 50,000/- can be deemed to be the savings
considering the total facts on record.
Nancy Goyal : They have duly submitted information as sought under
section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was argued that the investments
were made out of the regular savings and from her Stridhan. It was argued that
her husband was working in hospital and assessed with ITO Ward-2, Malerkotla
from whom she receives regular money and the savings were invested in the
shares.
6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the share holder on the
grounds that the documentary evidence in support of source of investments
have not been furnished.
6.2 We have gone through the material placed before us, the identity,
credibility of the share holder can be said to have been proved. As the
applicant’s investment of Rs. 50,000/- can be deemed to be the savings
considering the total facts on record.
Mr. Nirmal Kumar: They have duly submitted information as sought under
section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was argued that the investments
were made out of the gift received on 01/12/2005 by debiting the capital
account of Arjun Das Dhiman, father of the applicant in the books of his
proprietary concern in M/s S.R. Dhiman Industries, the copy of the capital
account of the applicant’s father has been submitted before the lower
authorities.
7.1 The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the share holder on the
grounds that the documentary evidence in support of source of investments
have not been furnished.
7.2 We have gone through the material placed before us, the identity,
credibility of the share holder can be said to have been proved. As the
applicant’s investment of Rs. 50,000/- in shares can be regarded as received
from his father as gift.
Shri. Parminder Kumar :- It was argued that the applicant has expired on
08/01/2008 the matter is being sent back to the file of Assessing Officer with the
direction to the assessee to submit the relevant documents after collecting
them from the legal heirs.
Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and
after duly considering the background and the financial affairs of the
applicants, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) from serial no.1 to 4 of the
above mentioned table is hereby ordered to be deleted.
In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 24/07/2018 AG Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR