ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR V. M/S HALLMARK SUPPLIERS PVT.LTD., HOWRAH

ITA 46/RAN/2021

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted an addition of Rs. 6 crores to the income of M/s. Hallmark Suppliers Pvt Ltd. for the assessment year 2014-15. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer following a search operation under which the director of the assessee company had offered the amount as additional income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition citing lack of corroborative evidence and reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and ITAT, Kolkata. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the income offered during the search should be taxed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717033 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2021
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs Nageshwar Enterprises, Rohitaswa Das vs DCIT
• Laws Referred To: PCIT vs Nageshwar Enterprises, 421 ITR 388 (Guj), Rohitaswa Das vs DCIT order dated 28.8.2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT DATTA; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVESH PODDAR
• Keywords: Revised return; Document seized; Documents seized

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Jamshedpur Office Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur (Appellant) Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the revenue CIT(A)-Patna-3, 3/10628/2016-17 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Datta, ld CIT DR 3. Ld CIT DR submitted that there was a search in the case on 22.8.2013. It was the submission that in the course of assessment IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.46/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jamshedpur Office Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur Vs. M/s. Hallmark Suppliers Pvt Ltd., 3rd floor, Flat No.302, 108 Rabindra Sarani, Liluah, Howarah-711204 PAN/GIR No.AACCH 1833 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 O R D E R an appeal filed by the revenue against the ord dated 21.6.2021 in Appeal No.CIT(A) 17, for the assessment year 2014-15. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri Rajat DR represented on behalf of the revenue. Ld CIT DR submitted that there was a search in the Bhalotia case on 22.8.2013. It was the submission that in the course of assessment P a g e 1 | 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Hallmark Suppliers Pvt Ltd., floor, Flat No.302, 108-5, Rabindra Sarani, Liluah, 711204 ( Respondent) DR against the order of the ld in Appeal No.CIT(A)Patna- essee. Shri Rajat Bhalotia group of case on 22.8.2013. It was the submission that in the course of assessment Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.46/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 P a g e 2 | 5 proceedings, the assessee had filed a submission, wherein, the assessee had offered an amount of Rs.6 crores to be treated as additional income for the assessment year 2014-15. It was the submission that consequently, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.6 crores in the assessment. It was the submission that in the course of appeal before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the said addition of Rs.6 crores and ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs Nageshwar Enterprises, 421 ITR 388 (Guj) as also the decision of ITAT, Kolkata Benches in the case of Rohitaswa Das vs DCIT order dated 28.8.2019. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) held that the addition cannot be made on the basis of a statement of submission of the director of the assessee company until and unless there is any corroborative evidence for the same. It was the submission that the assessee having offered the said income in the course of search, the addition is liable to be upheld. It was the prayer that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 5. In reply, ld AR submitted that in this group of cases, there was declaration of nearly Rs.10 crores of which, Rs. 6 crores has been made in the hands of the assessee company, and balance of amount in other family members of the group. It was the submission that the statement had been recorded under compulsion and the director of the assessee company had given declaration under compulsion. It was the submission Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.46/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 P a g e 3 | 5 that there was no evidence to suggest that there was any undisclosed income which was required to be disclosed. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order most specifically at page 2 para 4 shows that the Assessing Officer has extracted the statement given by the director of the assessee company in the form of statement. A perusal of the said statement shows that the assessee has clearly mentioned thereon that “ we beg to offer an addition al income of Rs.6,00,00,000/- for A.Y. 2014-15, which is offered for taxation by the assessee. In this respect, we beg to submit that there are certain debtors from whom we have to realize substantial amount. We are making this declaration of additional income voluntarily to have peace of mind and to avoid any litigation We also understand that since it s a voluntary disclosure of income, no penalty will be imposed. We may mention that the amount of tax payable shall be paid as soon as we can realize funds from our sundry debtors. In any case, we desire to offer, as mentioned earlier, the additional income of Rr.6,00,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2014-15.” Further, on perusal of the assessment order shows that other than this statement of the director of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not used any other evidences for making the addition. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) also shows that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the basis of the said fact that Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.46/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 P a g e 4 | 5 there is no evidence of income being brought to tax on the basis of any seized documents or any evidence to suggest such income. The addition has been made only on the basis of the statement made by the assessee. The facts in the present case clearly shows that for the purpose of bringing any group income to tax, one of the primary requirement is the filing of revised return. Just because, the assessee makes a statement, the income cannot be brought to tax unless and until the Assessing Officer finds some evidences to show that the assessee has earned such income, which has not been disclosed in its return. The facts clearly shows that no such return has also been filed by the assessee disclosing the additional income of Rs. 6 crores. There is only one letter addressed to the Assessing Officer. The addition has also been made without reference to any incriminating material or otherwise to show that the assessee has earned such income during the impugned assessment year. This being so, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld CIT(A) on this issue insofar as the revenue has been unable to dislodge any of the findings of facts as arrived at by the ld CIT(A). This being so, we find no error in the order of the ld CIT(A) to interfere. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.46/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 P a g e 5 | 5 10. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2025. Sd/- sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 20/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jamshedpur Office 2. The Respondent: M/s. Hallmark Suppliers Pvt Ltd., 3rd floor, Flat No.302, 108-5, Rabindra Sarani, Liluah, Howarah-711204 3. The CIT(A)-Patna-3 4. Pr.CIT, Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "