M/S PARADIES MULTIPLEXS CUM VILLAS PVT LTD ,ABHOAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ABOHAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
per assessee, the ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicatedthe grounds in the appeal order.
I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 8 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019
Further, the addition was also challenged,made during assessment. The addition was made in different heads by the ld. AO. Being aggrieved on the assessment
order the assessee challenged the order before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering all the issues upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed the appeals before us.
ITA No. 138/Asr/2019 4. Ground No. 1 & 2, the assessee challenged the jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act and placed that the objection filed before the AO was not disposed of before
completion of the assessment. 4.1 The ld. DR pointed out that there is no such application was placed before the AO related to objection u/s 148 of the Act.
The ld. DR first invited our attention in page no. 6 of the ld. CIT(A) order which is extracted as below: “In view of the above, it is, therefore, requested that addition made is not justified. The same be deleted. 4.3 The submissions were sent to the Assessing Officer and the following report was received: “In this regard, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the Return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 u/s 139(1)
I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 9 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019
at Nil Income on 29.03.2010. Thereafter, on the basis of information available with this office, a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 25.03.2015 after recording the reasons u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to notice u/s 148. the assessee filed its reply on 16.04.2015 that the return already filed on 29.03.2010 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148. The then AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide his order dated 29.03.2016 at income of Rs. 6,72,99,721/- for the assessment year 2009-10 with the following additions/disallowances after discussing the case in detail while passing the order.” 5.1 The ld. DR further invited our attention in para no. 4 page no. 3 of the CIT(A)’s order which is extracted as below: “4. Ground of appeal no. 2, 3 and 4: Challenge to reassessment proceedings: The appellant has challenged mounting of reassessment proceedings on legal grounds. It is contended that the statutory notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 25/03/2015 was not legal challenging the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer; howeverthe objections and the merit of contention are being dealt in succeeding paragraphs. 4.1 The Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for mounting reassessment proceedings:
I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 10 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019
“As per information available with this office that the above noted assessee has credited in the bank account no. 65030336634 with SBOP, Abohar amounting to Rs.7,37,60,500/- and also purchased properties for a consideration of Rs. 1,72,88,000/-. The above noted assessee has filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2009- 10 on 29/03/2010. From the return it is not verifiable from which source the assessee has deposited the huge amount in its bank account and also transactions of purchase of properties at Rs. 1,72,88,000/- are not verifiable from the return. I have therefore, reasons to believe that the amount deposited in its bank account to the tune of Rs. 7,37,60,500/- and investment on properties amounting to Rs. 1,72,88,000/- is unexplained deposits which has escaped assessment. Accordingly, I have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee amounting to Rs. 9,10,48,500/- besides any other incomes chargeable to tax which may come to notice subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act , 1961. Therefore, proceedings u/s 147 are being initiated by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act, 1961.” 5.2 The ld. DR again placed that the recorded reason is specifically mentioned,
the concealment of income and there is no such any illegality in the recorded
reason.So, the ground related to jurisdiction u/s 148 is liable to be quashed.
I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 11 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019
We heard the submission of revenue and consider the orders of the revenue
authorities. We find that there is no such any evidence is able to place by the
assessee during the hearing related filing of objection before the ld. AO. The ld.
CIT(A) by speaking order clearly explained the merit of the grounds taken during
the appeal. In recorded reason to believe there is no such any ambiguity or any
illegality made by the ld. AO. In our considered view, we are not interfering in the
order of the ld. CIT(A).
Accordingly, ground no. 1 & 2 of the assessee are dismissed.
Ground Nos. 3 to 9
In the above mentioned grounds, the ld. CIT(A) had made a speaking order
related to addition amount of Rs. 6,10,20,750/-, no specific evidence related to
transaction of immoveable property was also able to substantiate before the bench.
7.1. Related to addition for cash payment amount to Rs.22,71,000/- which is
violated the provision of section 40A(3). The assessee claimed that the cash
payment is exempted U/R 6DD(e) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 ( in short Rule).
The ld. CIT(A) in its order specifically mentioned that the Rule 6DD(e) is not
applicable for the assessee’s transaction. The Rule 6DD(e) is extracted as below.
“6DD(e) where the payment is made for the purchase of— (i) agricultural or forest produce; or
I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 12 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019
(ii) the produce of animal husbandry (including livestock, meat, hides and skins) or dairy or poultry farming; or (iii) fish or fish products90; or (iv) the products of horticulture or apiculture, to the cultivator, grower or producer of such articles, produce or products;”
During the hearing before the bench no evidence is submitted by the assessee in
relation to the claim. So, the ground taken by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is
dismissed.
7.2. Related to addition for violation of section 40(a)(ia) is amount of
Rs.10,07,971/-. No tax was deducted at source. But in the appeal the assessee was
unable to substantiate its claim in favour of its ground. No evidence is placed
before the bench in support of the claim.
7.3. The ground was placed for addition of received credit from Shri Rajesh
Babbar Rs.5 lac and from Sunrise Educational & Welfare Society Rs.25 lac. In
first appeal assessee placed the details before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has
taken the view in appeal order page no. 16 para 8.1 & 8.2 which are extracted as
below:
“8.1 In the course of appellate proceedings it was contended that the Assessing Officer has made these additions without making any enquiries whereas complete details of the persons
I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 13 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019
extending credit was available with the Assessing Officer. It has been specifically argued that Sh. Rajesh Babar was being assessed with the same Assessing Officer. In case of the other entity M/s Sunrise Educational & Welfare Society, the appellant has provided complete details of the transaction. In case, the Assessing Officer had any doubts then he should have made enquires. 8.2 I have given careful consideration to the contention above and find that the same is not acceptable because merely by stating that the transaction has happened through the banking channel and the allegedly lender is a regular income tax assessee does not discharge the burden of the appellant. Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Pavan Kumar M. Sanghvi v. ITO [2018] 97 taxmann.com 398 (SC) dismissed the SLP of the appellant upholding decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High court [2018] 90 taxmann.com 386/404 ITR 601 (Guj.) holding that the assesseehas to satisfy the Assessing Officer about the creditworthiness of the lender namely Sh. Rajesh Babar (Rs. 5 lakhs) and Sunrise Educations & welfare Society (Rs. 25 lakhs). In this case, the appellant failed to discharge the onus of satisfying that the lenders are creditworthy and hence the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 8. The ld. DR fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities.
I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 14 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019
We consider the documents available in the record and rely on the order of both the revenue authorities. The assessee has filed the appeal before the bench but
there is no such any evidence is produced before the bench in favour of the grounds of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has passed a speaking order and explained the details submission of the assessee. No application for filing additional
evidenceis filed before the bench from end of assessee. In our considered view, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is detailed and speaking order. We are not interfering in the appeal order. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld. 9.1 In the result, groundno. 3 to 9of the assessee are dismissed.
Ground no. 10, is general in nature.
ITA No. 628/Asr/2018 11. In this appeal the assessee has taken the different grounds apart from
challenging the jurisdiction of section 148. In ground no. 5 is related confirming the addition of Rs.34 lac on account of credit made by the M/s Aar Dee Towers Pvt. Ltd.
The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in page no. 10 para 5.2 to 6 of the appeal order which are extracted as below: “5.2 I have given careful consideration to the contention above and find that the same is not acceptable because
I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 15 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019
merely by stating that the transaction has happened through the banking channel and the allegedly lender is a regular income tax assessee does not discharge the burden of the appellant. Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Pavan Kumar M. Sanghvi v. ITO [2018] 97 taxmann.com 398 (SC) dismissed the SLP of the appellant upholding decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High court [2018] 90 taxmann.com 386/404 ITR 601 (Guj.) holding that the assessee has to satisfy the Assessing Officer about the creditworthiness of the lender. In this case, the appellant failed to discharge the onus of satisfying that the lender is creditworthy and hence the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition. The ground of appeal is dismissed.
6.0 Ground of Appeal no. 5: Addition of Rs. 34,00.000/- : The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 34 lakhs on account of unexplained credits from Aar Dee Towers P Ltd. by holding that the appellant has failed to satisfy the necessary ingredients of Section 68 of Income Tax Act and hence the credit has been treated as deemed income of the appellant.” 13. We heard the ld. DR and consider the order of the revenue authorities. Related to the credit transaction the revenue is dissatisfied about the
creditworthiness of creditor related to amount of Rs, 34,00,000/-. We find that
I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 16 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019
during hearing before the bench the assessee has not filed any evidence about the creditworthiness of the creditor, M/s Aar Dee Towers Pvt. Ltd. The addition was
confirmed due to lack of creditworthiness of the creditor. We find that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) Accordingly, the ground no. 5 of the assessee is dismissed.
In ITA Nos. 628/Asr/2018, the rest of grounds are decided on the basis of the order of ITA No. 138/Asr/2019 which is mutatis mutandis applicable for ITA No. 628/Asr/2018 and follows accordingly. 15. In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA No.628/Asr/2018 & ITA No. 138/Asr/2019 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order
