ACIT, Muzaffarnagar V. M/s. B.B. Rice & General Mills, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 1510/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52590 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: K L ANEJA
• Section: 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1510/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ACIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARNAGAR. VS. B.B. RICE & GENERAL MILLS, MOHALIA ALDARMIAN, KAIRANA, MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN : AANFM6998C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.L. ANEJA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DATED 20 TH DECEMBER, 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,99,060/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM, BUT THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE C REDITORS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 2. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF A.O. BE RESTORED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOT ICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSE SSEE FIRM, ITA NO.1510/DEL/2011 2 NAMELY, SMT. TABBUSAM WIFE OF SHRI MUNNAWAR HASSAN HAD DEPOSITED IN HER ACCOUNT WITH THE FIRM A SUM OF ` 16,99,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. AS THE SAME COULD NOT B E EXPLAINED, THE AMOUNT OF ` 16,99,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF T HE FIRM ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNER. THE ADDITION WAS AGITATED IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE OF SMT. TABBUSAM WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND SCRUTINY WAS MADE AND THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE SAID PARTNER WAS EXPLAI NED AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE CASE OF SMT. TABBUSAM VIDE ORDER DATED 21 ST DECEMBER, 2009. AGAINST SUCH DELETION THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, IN APPE AL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE LEARN ED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US A PAPER BOOK IN WHICH THE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF SMT. TABBUSAM HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE S 14 AND 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SMT. TABBUSAM HAS BEEN ASSESSED VI DE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21 ST DECEMBER, 2009 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3)/148 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR HAS POINTED OUT THAT IT IS WRITTEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF M/S B.B. RICE & GENERAL MIL LS, KAIRANA, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER AND HAS INVESTED ` 16,99,000/- AS CAPITAL IN THE SAID FIRM AND HAS NOT FILED HER RETU RN OF INCOME IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 W AS ISSUED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLE REASON FOR INITIATING THE RE-A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER WAS THE INVESTM ENT MADE BY HER IN THE FIRM AND ASSESSMENT AFTER SCRUTINY HAS BEEN FR AMED AT RETURNED INCOME OF ` 95,644/-. THUS, HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (A) IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. ITA NO.1510/DEL/2011 3 4. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED DR, RELYING UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND IT HAS WRONGLY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (A). 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND AFTER GOING TH ROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) AND THE AFO REMENTIONED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF SMT. TABBUSAM, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED B Y THE CIT (A). IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF SMT. TABBUSAM, IT HA S CLEARLY BEEN WRITTEN THAT RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATE D FOR THE REASON THAT SHE INVESTED A SUM OF ` 16,99,000/- IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE HAD ACCEPTED THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY HER IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THEREFORE, WE SEE NO REASON TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM AS THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNER. WE DECLIN E TO INTERFERE AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.08.20 11. SD/- SD/- [B.C. MEENA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 30.08.2011. DK ITA NO.1510/DEL/2011 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES