Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, V. Worldwide Oilfield Machine Private Limited, Pune

ITA 101/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6079 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: DR SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM / ITA NO.101/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12, PUNE. ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. WORLDWIDE OILFIELD MACHINE PRIVATE LIMITED. 82, PARVATI TOWERS, 6 TH FLOOR, PARVATI, PUNE-411 009 PAN : AAACW1640D / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : DR. SUNIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARG / DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2019 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), PUNE-5 DATED 30.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12 AS PER FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,25,00,0 00/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SURVEY ACTION ON IT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS NEVER MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN ESTIMATING ITS INCOME FOR THE CONCERNED YEAR AND THAT THE 2 ITA NO. 101/PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 DECLARATION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF REVISING ITS ESTIMATE D INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE'S RE TURNED INCOME HAS BEEN CONSISTENT WHEN COMPARED TO THAT OF THE PRECEDING Y EARS. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, ADD, AMEND OR ALT ER ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS DELETION OF ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.1,25,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SURVEY ACTION ON IT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT SURVEY ACTION U /S.133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AC T) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 04.02.2011. DURING THE CO URSE OF SURVEY ACTION VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS INCLUDING E-MAILS WERE FOUND WHICH SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGING IN BOOKING EXPENS ES FOR PAYING ON- MONEY AND IN THIS REGARD THE DIRECTOR HAD DECLARED AN A DDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR AT RS.1,25,00,000/-. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADD ITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ADDIT IONAL INCOME OFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF THE SURVEY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AN D AS PER REASONS APPEARING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME D ISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.1,25,00,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. T HE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AN ORD ER U/S.250(4) OF THE 3 ITA NO. 101/PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 ACT DATED 28.06.2016 WAS PASSED DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMMENT AFTER PROPER ENQUIRY ON THE STATEMENT OF THE LD. AR ON THE FOLLOWING ISSU ES: 1.WHAT WERE THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS (MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). GIVE THE LIST AND DETAILS. 2. REGARDING THE IOUS TO EMPLOYEES-WHAT WERE THE TO TAL EXPENSES IN THESE IOUS AND THE DETAILS THEREOF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SENT REMAND REPORT DATED 23.08.201 6 WHICH IS ON RECORD AS PART OF THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY . THAT ON THE REMAND REPORT, SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHICH WERE INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND NOT BEING REPEATED HEREIN AGAIN FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE ENTIRE RECORDS WERE PERUSED AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 4.7 I HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE SUBM ISSION AND THE CONTENTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY. THE ONL Y ISSUE TO BE DECIDED HERE IS WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE APP ELLANT OR 3S THE AO HELD, WAS NOT SHOWN AT ALL. I FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN A LETTER TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX UNIT-II(2), PUNE WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ORIGINALLY ES TIMATED INCOME WAS RS.80,00,000/- ON WHICH ADVANCE TAX OF RS.20,00,000 /- WAS PAID UPTO DECEMBER 2010 AND RS.7,00,000/- REMAINED PAYABLE BY MARCH 2011. IT IS ALSO CLEARLY STATED THE APPELLANT AGREED TO A RE VISED ESTIMATE OF RS.2,05,00,000/- WHICH INCLUDED ESTIMATED INCOME OF RS.1,25,00,000/- ON WHICH ADDITIONAL TAX OF RS.45,00,000/- WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT ON 14.03.2011 WHICH TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE ESTIMA TED ADDITIONAL INCOME. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT, THE REVISED ESTIMATE MAKES NO MENTION OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AS THE BASIS OF THE DEC LARATION. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT CLEARLY STATES THAT, A LOOSE PAPE R BUNDLE AND TWO PER- DRIVES WERE THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSRR.ENT ORDER. THE DETAILS OF THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AR E STATED TO BE CONTAINING EMAILS AND PENDING LOUS DETAILS. THE AO REGARDING THE IOUS STATES THAT, THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CONFI RMED SPEED MONEY PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.L,30,900J- AND ALSO CONFIR MED AN EMAIL SEEKING APPROVAL OF RS.25,000/- FOR GETTING PERMISS ION FOR EXTENSION OF THE WAREHOUSE PERIOD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO, HAS A LSO BEEN UNABLE TO LINK THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WITH THE ADDITIONA L INCOME. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DE CLARED BY THE APPELLANT BY REVISING ITS EARLIER ESTIMATE. THE-APP ELLANT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,22, 24,836/- WHICH INCLUDES THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE APPE LLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAI NED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 4 ITA NO. 101/PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY SUBMITT ED THAT ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED INCOME WAS RS.80,00,000/- ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,25,00,000/- DECLARED BY ASSESSEE T HAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN FOR RS.8 0,00,000/-+ RS.1,05,00,000/- = RS.2.05 CRORES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HA S ALREADY FILED IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND OFFERED TO TAX TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 ,22,24,836/- WHICH THEREFORE, INCLUDES THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,25,00,000/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE ENTIRE SUBMISSIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE BEFORE REVENUE AND THE COPIES OF SUCH SUBMISSION HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE US IN PAGE 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED. THE LD. AR HAS SHOWN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FILED AT PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN TOTAL INCOME STATE D AT RS. 2.22 CRORES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATIONS AND EVIDENCES, ALL THESE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAK EN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITY WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, HA S MADE SUCH ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN FROM THE RE TURNED INCOME ITSELF THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED INCOME TO TAX AND IN THE RETUR N FILED OF RS.2.22 CRORE, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,25,00,000/- IS ALREADY INCLUDED. 5.1 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION S HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI RAMDAS MOTOR TRANSPORT, AUGUST 27, 1998 AND SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS. ON EXAMINING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED INCO ME WAS 5 ITA NO. 101/PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 RS.80,00,000/- ON WHICH ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,25,00,000/- A S DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS ADDED AND THE REVISED RETURNED INCOME WOULD BE RS.2.05 CRORES. HOWEVER, ON RECORD, THE RETURN OF INCOME W AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING RS.2.22 CRORES. THEREFORE, IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,25,00,000/- HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACC OUNT WHILE OFFERING HIS INCOME TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHICH IS HEREBY UP HELD AND THE RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS SUSTAINED. HENCE, GROU NDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- ANIL CHATURVEDI PARTHA SARAT HI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 21 ST JANUARY, 2019. SB !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS), PUNE-5, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT, PUNE-4, PUNE. 5. '#$ %%&' , ( &' , )*+ , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. $,- ./ / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // (0 / BY ORDER, %1 &+ / PRIVATE SECRETARY ( &' , / ITAT, PUNE. 6 ITA NO. 101/PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 08 .01.2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09 .01 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER