Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6062 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-07-2018
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
16-05-2017
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
09-06-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & SHRI M.BAL AGANESH, AM ] I.T.A NO. 1317/KOL/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-1 1 ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA -VS- M/S JOITA ENT ERPRISE PVT. LTD. [PAN: AABCJ 2064 P ] (APPELLANT) (RESPOND ENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI S. DASGUPTA, ADDL. CIT (DR) FOR THE RESPONDENT : S. BANERJEE, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.07.2018 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XII, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD C IT(A)] IN APPEAL NO. 143/XII/CIT(A)-XII/12(2)/2013-14 DATED 12.03.2014 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD AO] UND ER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 25.03.2013 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE CITA WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION TOWARDS SUNDRY CREDITORS IN T HE SUM OF RS 6,74,992/- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 2 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 2 2.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HE ASST YEAR 2010-11 ON 4.10.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 23,36,462/- AFTER SETT ING OFF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS 74,73,399/- FOR THE A SST YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A CREDIT B ALANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 31.3.2010 AGAINST M/S ASSEMBLAGE ENTERPRISE AMOUNTI NG TO RS 4,39,476/- AND M/S R.R.ENTERPRISES AMOUNTING TO RS 2,35,516/- IN THE B OOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENQUIRED ABOUT THE VERACITY OF TH E SAID CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SE TWO CREDITORS WHICH WERE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT ON 3.12.2012 . IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THESE CREDITORS ARE BROUGHT FORWARD FR OM EARLIER YEARS IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISH ED THE BILL COPIES AND LEDGER PRINT OUTS OF THE AFORESAID CREDITORS FROM THE ACCOUNTING YEAR IN WHICH TRANSACTIONS ORIGINATED WITH THEM. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE SOME DISPUTES THAT HAD CROPPED WITH THE SUNDRY CREDITORS RELATING TO BUSINESS TRANSACTI ONS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RESOLVED AND ACCORDINGLY THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS WERE NOT CLEARE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF REGARDING IDENTITY OF THE CREDITO RS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FROM TH E LEDGER OF M/S ASSEMBLAGE ENTERPRISE , THAT PAYMENT OF RS 2 LAKHS WAS PAID BY JOY MAJUMDAR & CO ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT NO PAYMENT TO THE SAID COMPAN Y WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS NOT EXPLAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE / DOCUMENTS THAT WHY M/S JOY MAJUMDER & CO HAS MADE PAYMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF R.R.ENTERPRISES, NO TRANSACTION WAS FOUND DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVA TIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE SAID TWO CONCERNS AND GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY , HE TREATED THE ENTIRE AM OUNT OF RS 6,74,992/- AS BOGUS SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 3 2.2. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS B EFORE THE CITA BY FURNISHING THE SAME DOCUMENTS . THE CITA CALLED FOR A REMAND REPO RT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER RAISED A NEW GROUND STATING THAT SINCE THERE IS NO ISSUE REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF T HE CREDITORS, THAT DESPITE MOST OF THE ITEMS ARE TAXABLE ITEMS, NONE OF THE BILLS SO FURNI SHED APPEARED TO HAVE ANY VAT NO. OF THE CREDITORS AND COMPUTATION OF VAT IN IT. IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT JOY MAJUMDER, PROPRIETOR OF M/S JOY MAJUMDER & CO IS THE DIRECTOR OF JOITA ENTERPRISES P LTD WHO HAS MADE SOME PAYMENT AGAINST HIS DUES TO THE COMPANY A ND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE ANY GROUND FOR ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD BOGUS CREDITOR. THE CITA OBSERVED AS UNDER:- A) THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT CREDITS APPEARING IN TH E BALANCE SHEET IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO PARTIES ARE BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCES FROM EARLIER Y EARS AND HENCE THE SUM OF RS 6,74,992/- CANNOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U /S 68 OF THE ACT. B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERI AL ON RECORD TO BRING THE TRADING LIABILITIES U/S 28(IV) OR U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. C) THE SUNDRY CREDITORS REPRESENTED LIABILITY FOR P URCHASE OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND THOSE PURCHASES FORMING PART OF THE TRADING ACCOUNTS STOO D ACCEPTED IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE BI LLS AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTING YEARS FOR VERIFICATION. D) THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASES ARE FROM UNREGISTERE D DEALERS AND NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE SERVED BY POST COULD NOT BY ITSELF DISPROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS OR GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. E) WHEN PURCHASES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED, THERE IS N O REASON TO DOUBT THE CREDITORS. 2.3. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE CITA DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE SUM OF RS 6,74,992/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 4 2.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT THE CITA HAD ANALYZED THE ENTIRE ISSUE THREADBARE AND HAD GIVEN CATEGORICAL F INDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. NONE OF THE FINDING S OF THE CITA COULD BE CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND AN Y JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CITA IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 3. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE CITA WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION TOWARDS BOGUS LIABILITIES IN THE SUM OF RS 1,18,90,627/- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 3.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.3.2010 HAD SHOWN RS 1,18 ,90,627/- AS OTHER LIABILITY FOR BOOKING MONEY. AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF MONIES TOWARDS BOOKING ADVANCE , DATE OF POSSESSION GIVEN TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE BOOKING MONEY WAS RECEIVED ETC, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TREATED THE SUM OF RS 1,18,90,627/- AS BOGUS LIABILITY AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.2. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT OUT OF RS 1,18,31, 146/-, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM RITA DAS RS 36,50,000/- AND AMIYA PRASAD BHATTACHAR JEE RS 6,12,750/- TOTALING TO RS 42,62,750/- WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON T HE BASIS OF REPLIES FROM RESPECTIVE BUYERS. MRS RITA DAS IN HER REPLY DENIED HAVING MA DE ANY KIND OF PAYMENTS REGARDING BOOKING OF FLAT AT MIRA GARDEN AND SHE ALSO ADDED T HAT SHE NEVER PURCHASED ANY FLAT, PARKING PLACE OR SHOP AT MIRA GARDEN AND THE NOTICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO HER. COPIES OF AGREEMENT OF SALE SHE ENTERED INTO WITH THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENT LETTERS FROM HER A ND HER HUSBAND , BANK STATEMENTS HIGHLIGHTING THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM HER ALONG W ITH A COPY OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DULY REGISTERED WITH THE DISTRICT SUB-REGI STRAR II, 24 PARGANAS (NORTH) , 5 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 5 BARASAT ON 13.8.2012 IN FAVOUR OF ONE SRI BRAJGOPAL PAL IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE FLATS TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE INTENDING PURCHASERS AND TO SIGN , EXECUTE AND ENTER INTO SUITABLE AGREEMENT FOR SALE WITH THE, WERE SUBMITTED TO ASSE SSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AND TO TESTIFY HER AS A LIAR COULD NOT FIND F AVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO PRACTICALLY ACCEPTED THE LETTER FROM RITA DAS WITHO UT VERIFYING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONTENTIONS FOR REASONS UNKNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. WI TH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF RS 6,12,750/- FROM AMIYA PRASAD BHATTACHARJEE , THE AS SESSING OFFICER ADDED THE AMOUNT AS INCOME ON THE BASIS OF A REPLY AGAINST NOTICE U/ S 133(6) OF THE ACT WHEREIN SRI BHATTACHARJEE FURNISHED A COPY OF THE POSSESSION LE TTER DATED 6.8.2007 FROM THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SRI BHATTACHARJEE HAS NOT GOT TH E FLAT CONVEYED/REGISTERED IN HIS FAVOUR AND THE FLAT IS LYING UNDER ITS POSSESSION. A COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY SRI BHATTACHARJEE TO THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSING HIS INABIL ITY TO GET IT REGISTERED IN HIS NAME WAS PRODUCED WHEREWITH AS PROOF TO THE FACT THAT THE FL AT IS NOT YET CONVEYED AND AS SOON AS IT GETS CONVEYED, THE ASSESSEE WOULD RECOGNIZE ITS SALE AND ACCOUNT FOR ACCORDINGLY . WITH RESPECT TO BALANCE BOOKING MONEY OF RS 75,68,3 96/- , DETAILS INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO PRESENT STATUS OF THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS WAS GIVEN. IT WAS ARGUED THAT ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE FILED DURING THE HEARING A ND THE SAME WERE AGAIN FILED BEFORE THE CITA. THE CITA CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT IN T HIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF RS 36,00,000/- AS FLAT BOOKING MONEY FROM RITA D AS HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED WAS BASELESS. THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PAPER BOOK WAS DRAWN TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITA WHEREIN IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE AFORESAID SUM FROM RITA DAS. THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF FLAT BOOKING MONEY OF RS 1,18,31,146/- WAS DULY FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REP ORT. 3.3. THE CITA OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNIS HED PROPER EVIDENCES WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE ADVANCE MONEY REC EIVED FROM RITA DAS AND AMIYA 6 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 6 PRASAD BHATTACHARJEE TOGETHER WITH THE DETAILS WITH NAMES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM REMAINING ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. H E OBSERVED THAT IN CASE OF BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, IT IS NORMAL PRACTICE TO RECEIVE FL AT BOOKING ADVANCES FROM PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. ACCORDINGLY, HE OBSERVED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THESE PARTIES AND THE RECEIPT OF ADVANCE BOOKINGS STOOD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND ACCO RDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE SUM OF RS 1,18,31,146/-. AGGRIEVED, THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN PROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT IT HAD RECEIVED FLAT BOOKING ADVANCE FROM RITA DAS IN THE SUM OF RS 36,50,000/- AND FROM AMIYA PRASAD BHATTACHARJEE IN THE SUM OF RS 6,12,750/-. WE FIND FROM THE LIST OF PARTIES REPRO DUCED IN PAGES 8 & 9 OF CITA ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAD DULY FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF OTH ER ADVANCES RECEIVED IN THE SUM OF RS 75,68,397/- TOWARDS FLAT BOOKING ADVANCES FROM VARI OUS PARTIES TOGETHER WITH THE REASON FOR EACH PARTY DULY INFORMING THE SUBSEQUENT STATUS OF REGISTRATION , REFUND OF MONIES ETC. WE FIND THAT THE LD CITA HAD CATEGORICALLY GI VEN A FINDING THAT THE SUBJECT MENTIONED RECEIPTS ARE TOWARDS FLAT BOOKING ADVANCE S RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PROSPECTIVE BUYERS WHICH IS QUITE NATURAL FOR A DEVELOPER CUM B UILDER TO DO SO. THE ENTIRE SUMS OF RS 1,18,31,146/- WERE DULY IDENTIFIED WITH RESPECTI VE PARTIES AND HENCE THERE IS NO SCOPE TO DOUBT THE IDENTITY OF THOSE PARTIES. NONE OF THE SE FINDINGS WERE CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. HOWEVER, NO REPLY WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CITA FOR THE REMAINING SUM OF RS 59,481/- (1,18,90,627 1,18,31,146) BY T HE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CITA. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CITA IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO . 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE CITA WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRED IT IN THE SUM OF RS 20,37,824/- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 7 4.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS 1,37,75,598/- WAS SHOWN AS LOAN OUTSTANDING TO M /S JOY MAJUMDER & CO., AS ON 31.3.2010. HE FURTHER NOTED FROM THE TRANSACTION ST ATEMENT OF M/S JOY MAJUMDER & CO., THAT PAYMENT OF SOME EXPENSES WERE MADE BY THE SAID CONCERN AND THAT DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID BY THE SAI D CONCERN TO THE TUNE OF RS 20,37,824/- WERE AS UNDER:- 8 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE ABOVE TABLE TH AT THE AMOUNT OF RS 9,61,759/- WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID TOWARDS SUNDRY CREDITORS BY M/ S JOY MAJUMDER & CO., ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS NO SUCH MAJOR EXPENSES WER E FOUND IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED FRO M THE CHART OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES AND SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR GOODS THAT NO SUC H MAJOR PAYMENT WAS MADE AS BELOW:- AS ON 31.3.2009 AS ON 31.3.2010 SUNDRY CREDITORS OF EXPENSES RS 1,58,164/- RS 2,18,503/- SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR GOODS RS 13,71,190/- RS 13 ,29,864/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD C LAIMD THAT RS 9,19,165/- WAS PAID BY M/S JOY MAJUMDER & CO., AS PROJECT WORK IN P ROGRESS ON ITS BEHALF. IT WAS FOUND THAT NO MODE OF PAYMENT WAS MENTIONED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PAYMENT, ONLY AN ENTRY WAS PASSED UNDER THE NARRATION PROJECT WORK- IN PROGRESS BEING CONTRACT NO. 15/09/2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT NO DETAILS REGARDING WORK IN PROGRESS WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, NOR THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO TREAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS 20,37,824/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ADD T HE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 4.2. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT TRAVELING EXPENSES OF RS 1,56,900/- PAID TO JOYDEEP MAJUMDER ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY WAS INCURRED ON T OUR EXPENSES WAS CAPITALIZED AND ADDED TO PROJECT WORK IN PROGRESS OF MIRA GARDEN AN D DAY TO DAY EXPENSES OF STAFF AND SUPERVISORS FOR RS 94,002/- WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT A ND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS 9,61,759/- TO CREDITORS OF THE CO MPANY PAID BY JOY MAJUMDER & CO WERE TO M/S ASSEMBLAGE ENTERPRISE, M/S MPCC, M/S NI VEDITA ELECTRICALS , M/S UNIQUE SUPPLIERS. THESE PAYMENTS WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST EITHER THE OUTSTANDING IN PREVIOUS YEARS OR AGAINST EXPENSES F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THOSE PAYMENTS ALONG WITH TH E AMOUNT OF RS 9,19,165/- WAS 9 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 9 CAPITALIZED AND ADDED TO PROJECT WORK IN PROGRESS A ND HENCE NOT DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE OTHER H AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, DOCUMENS, BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS 20,37,824/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE ASSESSMENT. 4.3. BEFORE THE CITA, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MORE EMPHASIS WAS LAID ON THE FACT THAT OU TSIDE CREDITORS WERE PAID BY M/S JOY MAJUMDER & CO ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS C ONTENDED THAT M/S JOY MAJUMDER & CO IS THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF SRI JOYDEEP MAJ UMDER, WHO IS ALSO ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WHO HAS BEEN ENTRU STED WITH THE WORK OF CARRYING ON CONSTRUCTION OF MIRA GARDEN PROJECTS AND WAS ASKED TO MAKE PAYMENTS AGAINST SOME CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE DETAILS WERE D ULY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO DOUBT THE VERA CITY OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO SPECIFIC WORKS CONTRACT BILL RECEIVED F ROM M/S JOY MAJUMDER & CO. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORK EXECUTED BY THEM IN CONNECTION WI TH MIRA GARDEN PROJECT AND THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED THE SAID BILL AMOUNT OF RS 9, 19,165/- TO JOY MAJUMDER & CO., WHICH WAS CAPITALIZED AND ADDED TO PROJECT WORK IN PROGRESS. THE ENTIRE DETAILS TOGETHER WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE INDEED PRO DUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHICH EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CITA AND ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT IT WAS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO S TATE THAT NO DETAILS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. 4.4. THE CITA DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS 20,37,824/ - BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.6.3. DECISION: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND M ATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE AP PELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 20,37,824/- ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELI.ANT DID NOT FURNISH A NY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. ON THE O THER HAND, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE SUM OF RS.11,18,659/- WAS PAI D TO VARIOUS PARTIES BY M/S. JOY MAJUMDER & CO. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. IT HAS F URTHER STATED THAT PAYMENTS OF 10 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 10 LIABILITY OF CERTAIN CREDITORS, A COMPANY CAN ALSO OUTSOURCE FUND FROM ANY OTHER CREDITORS M/S. JOY MAJUMDER & CO. IS THE PROPRIETOR SHIP FIRM OF SRI JAYDEEP MAJUMDER WHO IS ALSO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT C OMPANY HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO CARRIED ON CONSTRUCTION OF MIRA GARDEN PROJECTS AND WAS ASK ED TO MAKE PAYMENTS AGAINST OF SOME CREDITORS OF THE APPELLANT. HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY JOY MAJUMDAR & CO. FROM SUCH DETAILS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE SAID FIRM ON B EHALF OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, WHICH ARE REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO RHYME OR REASON TO SUGGEST THAT THE CREDITS APPEARING IN THE NAME OF J OY MAJUMDAR & CO. ARE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. IN THIS CASE, THE IDENTITY, THE CREDI T-WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEE ESTABLISHED. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THA T THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,37,824/- IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED. THE SAME IS THUS DIREC TED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 4.5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN PROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT IT HAD ENTRUSTE D THE WORK OF CARRYING ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF MIRA GARDEN PROJECT TO JOY MAJUMDER & CO AND THAT CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO CREDITORS WERE MADE BY THEM ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT M/S JOY MAJUMDER & CO IS A PROPRIETORSHIP CON CERN OF SRI JOYDEEP MAJUMDER, WHO IS ALSO A DIRECTOR IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE NCE REQUESTING THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO OUTSIDE CREDITORS ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN ORDER. ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE INDEED FURNIS HED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAME WERE AGAIN FURNISHED BEFORE THE CITA. WE FIND THAT THE LD CITA HAD APPRECIATED THESE EVIDENCES WHICH WERE ALREADY ON R ECORD. THE ENTIRE SUMS OF RS 20,37,824/- WERE DULY IDENTIFIED WITH RESPECTIVE PA RTIES AND RESPECTIVE EXPENSES TOGETHER WITH THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO THEM IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THERE IS NO SCOPE TO DOUBT THE VERACITY OF TH E SAME. NONE OF THESE FINDINGS WERE CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CITA IN THIS REGARD . ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11 ITA NO.1317/KOL/2014 M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 11 5. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE REVENUE HAD RAISED A GRO UND THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES , 19 63, THE LD DR BEFORE US COULD NOT DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FRESH DOCUMENTS THAT WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CITA IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE ADDITIONS CONTESTED BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAI D PLEA OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED AND GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11.07.2018 SD/- SD/- [S.S. GODARA] [ M .BALAGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED : 11.07.2018 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, C HOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA- 700069. 2. M/S JOITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., 4, HINDUSTHAN PA RK, KOLKATA-700029. 3..C.I.T(A).- 4. C.I.T .- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Object Clause - Merchant Banking Business
Mehul₹100
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026