Rajshree Synthetics v. CIT

ACIT 33(2), Mumbai vs. J.K. Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit/Acit-33(2), Room M/S J.K. Industries F1-Gyan No. 608, 6Th Floor, Bldg. C- Darshan, S.V.P. Road, Kandivali Vs. 12, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai-400067. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. Pan No. Aaafj0696B Appellant Respondent

…well-settled that after the assessee has adduced evidence, the onus shifts to the Department for addition u/s 68 of the Act. It has been held so in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. In the instant case, the AO has failed to discharge the onus shifted to him. He has made the addition on surmises. Therefore, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the 1st ground of appeal. 7. The 2nd ground of appeal Whether on the facts and…

ITO 16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Realstone Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/S Realstone 16(1)(5), Room No. Vs. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. A- 439, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 601, Crystal Palace, Link Bhavan M.K. Road, Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400064. Pan No. Aaccr8558F Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 201/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 1271/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Realstone Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. C/O Vs. 16(1)(5), Room No. 439, Ajay Daga& Co. Cas, 401-A, 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan Pearl Arcade, Opp P K M.K. Road, Mumbai- Jewellers, Dawoodbaug 400020. Lane, Off J P Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaccr8558F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria & Mr. Sachidanand Debe, Drs Assessee By : Mr. R.C. Jain, Ar Last Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2019

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/s Realstone 16(1)(5), Room No. Vs. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. A- 439, 4th floor, Aayakar 601, Crystal Palace, Link Bhavan M.K. Road, Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400064. PAN No. AACCR8558F Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 201/MUM/2018 (ITA No. 1271/MUM/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Realstone Income Tax Officer- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. C/o Vs. 16(1)(5), Room No. 439, Ajay Daga& Co. CAs, 401-A, 4th floor, AayakarBh…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jamini Nidustries Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

…1 M/s Jamini Industries After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the Department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. In the instant case, in response to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2016, the AR of the assessee filed a written submission dated 26.12.2016 before the AO stating the following : “With reference to the Repor…

ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Consultshah Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeed Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S Consultshah 12(1)(4), Room No. 145A, Vs. Financial Services Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd., 426, 4Th Floor, Road, Churchgate, Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Mumbai-400020. Road, Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aadcc3362K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Assessee By : Dr. Prayag Jha & Mr. Prateek Jha, Ars Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

…Services 8 After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in the case of Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. We find that in the instant case, the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid. The onus shifted to the department. The AO has not made required investigation to find out the genuineness of transaction. In the case of Chain…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

…the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as succinctly held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 689, Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596 Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 50 ITR 1 the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the asseessee’s account or in the account of a third party. In the ins…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

…the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as succinctly held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 689, Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596 Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT 50 ITR 1 the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the asseessee’s account or in the account of a third party. In the ins…

A.J.M. and Company, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S A.J.M. & Co. 801, Dy. Cit-15(1)(1), Panchratna Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Churchgate, Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm0310R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

…ion it here. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie his M/s AJM & Co. 8 case, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452, 454; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285; MOD Creations P. Ltd. v. ITO 354 ITR 282. We find that the AO incomplete disregard to the details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings mentioned by him at para 4.3 of the assessment order and without a finding that the part…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lotus Grih Nirman P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer 8(2)(2), M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Room No. 212/216A, 2Nd Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 419, Laxmi Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Road, Mumbai-400020. Estate, Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400059. Pan No. Aabcl0864D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2018

…action. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in the decision in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596; Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331; Ashokpal v. CIT 220 ITR 452; CIT v. Metachem 245 ITR 160; CIT v. Shree Gopal 204 ITR 285. However, we find that the AO has failed in the instant case to find fault with the submissions made by the assessee. The AO could have made investigations to find out the truth of the case. On the other hand, the AO has resorted to general propositions. To…

K Vrushali, Thane vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. K. Vrushali, 4-D, Income Tax Officer- Regency Park, Eden Woods, Vs. 11(1)(2), Mumbai Pawar Nagar Thane- 400610. Pan No. Agypk5387J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

…ess of the transaction. After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department as held in Shankar Ind v. CIT 114 ITR 689; Prakash Textile v. CIT 121 ITR 890; CIT v. United 187 ITR 596, Rajshree v. CIT 256 ITR 331. In view of the factual matrix and position of law mentioned above, we admit the additional evidence and remit the matter to the file of the AO to make a de novo order, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO. 8. In the result, the appeal is a…

Rajabahadur B. Yadav, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajbahadur B. Yadav Ito-22(3)(3), Room No. 442, Namdev Room No. 308, 3Rd Vs. Nagar, Dighe Thane, Near Floor, Tower No. 6, Digha Bab Temple, Belapur Vashi Railway Station Road, New Complex, Navi Mumbai-400708. Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Abkpy2651C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

…pellant has claimed to have received gifts from family members and close relatives. Though an affidavit may not be substituted for proof, it cannot be rejected without cross- examination or further inquiry as held in Rajshree Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 331 (Raj). In matters of transactions with interested person, the burden of proving that the transaction is genuine and that consideration is adequate will be on the asssessee as held in CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bom). The High Court, while remanding the case to the Tribunal laid down the following guidelines: 1. The assessee sho…