CIT v. Metachem Industries

M/S Bagora Developers P Ltd, Indore vs. The Ait OSD, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bagora Developers Pvt. Acit- Ltd. Indore 34, Revenue Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecb6424E Assessee By Shri Siddharth Mahajan & Ashok Mahajan, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2024

…e assessee and payment was also made by the Directors and therefore, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: (i)-CIT vs Metacam Industries, (2007) 7ITJ 310(MP):- (2000)245 ITR 160: (2000) 161 CTR (ii)-P.K. Sethi vs CIT (2006) 286 ITR 318(Gau.) A (iii)-Ashok Pal Daga vs CIT (1996) 220 ITR 452 (MP) (iv)-Orient Trading Company Ltd. Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723(Bom.) Page 3 of 7 ITANo.73/Ind/2021 Bagora Developers P. ltd. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the land in question was purchased by the assessee and the…

Mohammad Shahid Khan, Damoh vs. ITO Sagar Ward-1, Sagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

…I.T.A. No.55/Jab/2023 1 Assessment Year:2018-19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.55/JAB/2023 Assessment Year:2018-19 Mohammad Shahid Khan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 01, Ganga Jamna, Futera Ward, Ward-1, 5, Damoh. Sagar. PAN:BEFPK2080K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri M. P. Tiwari, Advocate Respondent by Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT (D.R.) Date of hearing 23/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 19/12/2023 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S.:J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the…

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Income Tax Officer Vs Rama Allure LLP Ward, Phalodi, 98, Krishna Nagar, Jodhpur Pal Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAZFR 4837 P Assessee By Sh. Amit Kothari, C.A. & Sh. Ajay Moondra Revenue By Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT Date of hearing 14/07/2023 Date of 09/10/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by revenue and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 28.02.2023 [here in a…

Darshit Developers, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.471/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Darshit Developers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, C/O Kashmiraben Shaileshbhai Valsad Room No.204/Palak Vs. Patel/ Bhagwati Bunglowes / Arcade, Near Pali Hill, Tithal Maninagar Society, Tithal Cross Road, Valsad-396001 Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfd 5807 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 07.07.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Ignoring The Fact & Law That Incorrect Information Received From Ddit[Inv.] Does Not Give Jurisdictional To The A.O For Invoking Reassessment Proceedings Us/ 147 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld Addition Of Partner’S Capital Of Rs.12,50,000/- [Shilpaben Shah] As Well As Another Partner’S Capital Rs.12,50,000/- [Nipaben Shah] + Total Rs.25,00,000/- Ignoring The Fact That There Was No Business Activity Of Firm In The Year Under Assessment As Well As Partner’S Capital Contribution Cannot Be Treated As Income Of The Firm Considering Facts Of Appellant’S Case.”

…ndia (2007) 208 CTR 457 (P&H) vi) Rajasthan High Court: the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view. vii) Madhya Pradesh High Court” Commissioner of Income Tax v. Metachem Industries [2001] 245 ITR 160 (MP) and it was held that according to Section 68 the burden was on the ae to satisfactorily explain the credit entry in the books of account of the previous year and in a case where satisfactory explanation had been given by establishing that the amount had been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or any individual then the burden o…

Shri Naresh Navlani, Indore vs. The DCIT Central Circle -2 Indore, Indore

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Shri Naresh Navlani, Dcit/Acit, 39, Sai Bagh Colony, (Central Circle)-2, बनाम/ Khandwa Road, Indore. Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aazpn2242G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023

…a right of assessee to look into the affairs of creditor, that is whether he is filing return of income or not and if not, then why. Ld. AR relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries, as reported in (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) wherein it is held thus: “4. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) examined the matter in detail and found that Shri S. K. Gupta was the real owner of the business. The explanation given by the assessee was found to be satisfactory and he deleted the aforesaid three entries. The same finding of fact has been affirmed by the Tr…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

…yment of the loan by the assesse to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques.” vii] The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP)has held as under: “Once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of the assessee is over. Whether that person is an income-tax payer or not and where he had brought this money from, is not the responsibility of the firm. The moment the firm gives a s…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

…yment of the loan by the assesse to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques.” vii] The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP)has held as under: “Once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of the assessee is over. Whether that person is an income-tax payer or not and where he had brought this money from, is not the responsibility of the firm. The moment the firm gives a s…

The DCIT1(1), Indore vs. Shri Ravi Arora, Indore

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

…f cross examination of the statements which were relied for making the additions which contravenes the settled principle of natural justice. 5.10 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries as reported in 245 ITR 160 has held that (Refer para 3 to 6):- “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 68 of the Act of 1961 says that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the op…

ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

…hands of loan creditors. Once the said addition was made in the hand of loan creditor then the same cannot be made in the hands of assesse company. 6. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that once the assessee has established that amount has been invested by a particular person, responsibility of the assesse is over and there is no requirement on the part of the assesse-firm to further show whether amount invested has been properly taxed in the hands of the creditor. He has also relied upon…

M/S Radhika Water & Amusement Park Inds, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(2), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.320/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Radhika Water & Amusement Park Industries, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk7321K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

…ners, then the action was called for in the hands of the partners and not in the case of the assessee firm. Further, reliance was placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160(MP). 14. Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee firm in the course of assessment proceedings had placed on record documentary evidence, wherein, Shri Karan Sachdeo (supra) had duly confirmed his capital account of Rs.1,71,278.30 (Cr.) appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee firm on 31.03.2005. My attention was d…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

…he source was explained but also source of source was very well established beyond any doubt.” 22. The assessee relied upon the following judgments: i. Orissa Corporation (P.) Limited, reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Metachem Industries, reported in 245 ITR 160 (MP) iii. CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd., reported in (2013) 356 ITR 65 (MP) iv. Ashokpal Daga (HUF) vs. CIT, reported in 220 ITR 452 (MP) v. CIT vs. Barjatiya Children Trust, reported in 225 ITR 640 (MP) vi. ACIT vs. M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 736/Ind/2019 vii. CIT vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava, reported in (2012) 208 Taxman 35…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

…he source was explained but also source of source was very well established beyond any doubt.” 22. The assessee relied upon the following judgments: i. Orissa Corporation (P.) Limited, reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Metachem Industries, reported in 245 ITR 160 (MP) iii. CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd., reported in (2013) 356 ITR 65 (MP) iv. Ashokpal Daga (HUF) vs. CIT, reported in 220 ITR 452 (MP) v. CIT vs. Barjatiya Children Trust, reported in 225 ITR 640 (MP) vi. ACIT vs. M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 736/Ind/2019 vii. CIT vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava, reported in (2012) 208 Taxman 35…

DCIT Central-1, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

…he source was explained but also source of source was very well established beyond any doubt.” 22. The assessee relied upon the following judgments: i. Orissa Corporation (P.) Limited, reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Metachem Industries, reported in 245 ITR 160 (MP) iii. CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd., reported in (2013) 356 ITR 65 (MP) iv. Ashokpal Daga (HUF) vs. CIT, reported in 220 ITR 452 (MP) v. CIT vs. Barjatiya Children Trust, reported in 225 ITR 640 (MP) vi. ACIT vs. M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 736/Ind/2019 vii. CIT vs. Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava, reported in (2012) 208 Taxman 35…