M/s. Bansal Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Bhavnagar V. The Jt. CIT, (OSD), Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 1415/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8605 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT P JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: P S PARMAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S. BANSAL SHIPPING PVT. LTD. 2137, NR. GOLDEN ARC, ATABHAI CIRCLE, BHAVNAGAR - 364001 PAN: AABCB1597R (APPELLANT) VS THE JCIT(OSD) , CIRCLE - 1 , BHAVNAGAR (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI LALIT P. JAIN , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.S. PARMAR , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 24 - 07 - 2 019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 - 09 - 2 019 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 , ARI SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 26 - 03 - 2 014 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,00,000/ - MADE U/S 68 IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL INCLUDING SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. I T A NO . 1415 / A HD/20 14 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 I.T.A NO. 1415 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO M/S. BANSAL SHIPPING PVT. LTD. VS. JCIT (OSD) 2 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00, 000/ - MADE U/S 68 IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AND NOTED THAT THE WHOLE OF THE AMO UNT OF RS. 1,50,00,000/ - ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME BY SHRI VIJAY BANSAL BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON PAGES 28 - 29 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, HE HAS ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT DESPITE GIVING SUCH CLEAR FINDING. HIS A CTION HAS RESULTED INTO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE VERY SAME INCOME WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. 4. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED IN GROSSLY IGNORING \ VARIOUS SU BMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234A/B/C OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COM MISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN AGGREGATE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 10.15 CRORES WHICH ALSO INCLUDED DISCLOSURE OF RS. 4 CORES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE LD. COUNSEL AFTER REFERRING THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS THE SAME ARE COVERED IN THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF DECISION OF INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PASSED U/S. 245(D)(4) ON 7 TH JULY, 2014. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE COVERED IN THE DISCLOSURE MADE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. A FTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT I NCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S. 245(D)(4) ON 7 TH JULY, 2014 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF , WE REST ORE THE CASE TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO I.T.A NO. 1415 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO M/S. BANSAL SHIPPING PVT. LTD. VS. JCIT (OSD) 3 DECIDE THE ISSUE IN APPEAL AFRESH AFTER VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN ASSESSMENT ARE COVERED IN THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTL EMENT COMMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH AS DIRECTED ABOVE AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 04 - 0 9 - 201 9 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 04 /0 9 /2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,