M/S.SUPRAS METALS LIMITED, MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1395/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0229 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B B RAJENDRA PRASAD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Peak credit
• Section: 143(3); 68; 263

Judgement Text

, G , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM ITA NO.1395/MUM/2018 : ASST.YEAR 2013-2014 M/S.SUPRAS METALS LIMITED 36/37, MITTAL CAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN : AABCV0769M. / VS. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(2) MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) /APPELLANT BY : --- NONE --- /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.B.RAJENDRA PRASAD / DATE OF HEARING : 05.12.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.12.2018 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN (AM) : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE REVISION ORDER DATED 01.01.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX-3, MUMBAI, U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REVI SION ORDER. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASION SEVERAL TIMES. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESS MENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 10.03.2016. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED ITA NO.3195/MUM/2018. M/S.SUPRAS METALS LIMITED. 2 LOANS TO THE TUNE OF RS.850.27 LAKH. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CASH CREDITS IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AFTER EXAMINING THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E, THE A.O. CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLIS H THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE ENTIRE CASH CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS.850.27 LAKHS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. HOWEVER, WHILE MA KING ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE CREDIT OF RS.62 3 LAKH, BEING THE AMOUNT REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED THE BALANCE FIGURE OF RS.227.27 LAKHS. 4. THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIT, ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS, NOTICED THAT THE A.O. HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN NOT ASSESSING T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CASH CREDITS IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THAT TOO , AFTER COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE TH E ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CASH CREDIT OF RS.850.27 LAKH IN TERMS OF SEC.68 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED PR.CIT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE DISALLOWED PEAK CREDIT OF THE LOANS INSTEAD OF DISALLOWING ONLY OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF L OAN REMAINING AFTER REPAYMENT. ACCORDINGLY, HE TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A .O. AND DIRECTED HIM TO PASS THE ORDER AFRESH AS PER THE DISCUSSION MADE BY HIM IN THE REVISION ORDER. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PR.CIT. ITA NO.3195/MUM/2018. M/S.SUPRAS METALS LIMITED. 3 6. WE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R ECORDED A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN RE SPECT OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.850.27 LAKH. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE REPAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED THE BALANC E AMOUNT OF RS.227.27 LAKH AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. T HE SAID ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS FOUND BY THE LEARNED PR.CIT AS NOT IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE LEARNED PR.CIT HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTRADICT THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED PR.C IT. UNDER THE SET OF FACTS, WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED PR.CIT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 05.12. 2018 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (B.R.BASKARAN) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 05 TH DECEMBER, 2018. DEVDAS* # $%&'&($ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ! ' ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ! ! ' / PR.CIT(A)-3, MUMBAI 5. %&' (()* , ! )* , / DR, ITA NO.3195/MUM/2018. M/S.SUPRAS METALS LIMITED. 4 ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ',-. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, %( //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI