Khushboo Ispat Pvt. Ltd, Bhavnagar V. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

ITA 1138/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6356 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकरअपील यअ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1138/AHD/2018 Assessment Year:2010-11 KhushbooIspat Pvt. Ltd., 182/A, Suvidha Township, Bhavnagar. PAN : AABCH 8472 P Vs The ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Sarju S. Mehta, CA Revenue by : Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR स ु नवाईक तार ख/D a t e o f H e a r i n g : 1 8 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 2 घोषणाक तार ख/D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 1 7 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 2 आदेश/O R D E R PERDR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad [in short “ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A)- 6/114/17-18 dated 22.02.2018 which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] dated 24.11.2017. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. That the Learned CIT- Appeals has also erred in Law and on the facts of the case, in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer. 2. That the Learned CIT-Appeals is not justified in upholding the action of AO in re-opening the case of appellant instead of some other assessee. 3. That the Learned CIT-Appeals is not justified in upholding the action of AO in making addition of Rs.24,73,949/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1138/Ahd/2018 (A.Y.10-11) KhushbooIspatPvt.Ltd. 2 4. That the appellant craves to add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3.Succinct facts are that during thescrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee is the beneficiary of accommodation entry provided by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain-Group.Therefore, Assessing Officer, after considering the reply of the assessee and as per the findings of the Investigation Team,noted that in case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain-Group, the transactions made by the assessee (M/s. KhusbooIspat Pvt. Ltd.) was bogus, therefore, made addition to the tune of Rs.24,73,949/-. 4.On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5.Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that bank statement, on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer had made addition, does not belong to assessee, hence there is no question of addition in the hands of the assessee.The ld Counsel pointed out that assessee`s main contention before theld CIT(A) was that SBI accountNo. 30723329134, from where the money was transferred though RTGS did not belong to assessee and it belonged to M/s Jenil Empire. The ld Counsel submitted before the Bench, the Copy of SBI bank a/c no. 30723329134 for AY.2009-10( vide assessee`s paper book page no.1 to 9). Therefore, ld Counsel prayed the Bench that entire addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. 6.On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 7.We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We have perused case file as well as paper books furnished by assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. CH. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) has held that the income should be assessed on the right person, right year and it should be on the right income. ITA No.1138/Ahd/2018 (A.Y.10-11) KhushbooIspatPvt.Ltd. 3 From the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court only the right person and the right person alone is liable to be taxed and not the wrong person. 8. Before us, ld Counsel submitted copy of SBI bank a/c no. 30723329134 for AY.2009-10, which pertains to M/s Jenil Empire. Therefore, we note that assessee is not owner of transactions contained in the said bank statement, hence income should not be taxable in the hands of the assessee, as the assessee is not a right person to pay tax on the transactions mentioned in the said bank statement. Therefore, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessing officer to examine the said bank statement. Hence, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine SBI bank a/c no. 30723329134, and transactions therein, and if theAssessing Officer finds that transactions mentioned in the said bank statement do not pertain to assessee, he should delete the addition. Therefore, for statistical purposes, the assessee`s appeal is treated to be allowed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17 th June, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (Dr. A. L. SAINI) ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 17 /06/2022 TRUE COPY SAMANTA आदेशक त ल पअ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धतआयकरआय ु त/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. वभागीय #त#न ध, आयकरअपील यअ धकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड%फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपील यअ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad