Ridhi Sidhi Shares Pvt ltd, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 21(3), New Delhi

ITA 1613/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3986 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: KAMAL GUPTA; PASSING AN EX
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1613/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Ridhi Sidhi Shares Pvt. Ltd., C/o. Salarpuria & Partners CA, 1008, Chiranjiv Tower, 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pin: 1100 19 Vs. ITO, Ward 21(3), New Delhi PAN :AADCR6447A (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 23.05.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. Assessee by Shri Kamal Gupta, CA Department by Shri Sankar Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 23.09.2022 2 ITA No.1613/Del./2020 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred: 1. In dismissing the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex- parte order after rejecting the adjournment application made by the appellant. 2. In confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 148/143(3) of the IT Act when the initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act are untenable in law under the proviso to section 147 when there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials facts necessary for its assessment for that year. 3. In confirming the addition of Rs.2.75 crores made by the Assessing Officer during the assessment year 2011-12 when only Rs.1.75 crore was received as credit during the year and the balance of Rs.1 crore was received during the assessment year 2007-08. 4. In sustaining the balance addition of Rs.1.75 crore which was received from same existing assessee whose identity, creditworthiness and genuineness is well established.” 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 26,09,2011. Assessment in case of assessee was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2013. Subsequently, the assessing officer found that in course of assessment proceedings in assessment year 2012-13, it was noticed that the assessee had shown share application money of 3 ITA No.1613/Del./2020 Rs.4,50,00,000. The said share application money was added to the income of the assessee while completing assessment for the said assessment year. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeal of assessee, held that an amount of Rs.2,75,00,000 related to earlier years, hence, deleted the same. Based on the aforesaid observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessing officer reopened the assessment for the impugned assessment year under Section 147 of the Act. Ultimately, the assessing officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with section 148 Act,1961 vide order dated 27.12.2017 adding back the income of Rs.2,75,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 4. Contesting the addition so made, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, while deciding the appeal ex parte, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal ex parte confirming the addition. 4 ITA No.1613/Del./2020 6. Further, he submitted, while deciding assessee’s appeal in assessment year 2012-13, the Tribunal has set aside the issue relating to identical addition to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. He submitted, since, the disputed addition is in relation to transaction made with the same party, the matter may be remanded back to the assessing officer in the impugned assessment year as well. 7. The learned Departmental Representative, though, supported the observations of the departmental authorities, however, he submitted, matter can be re-examined by the assessing officer. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. 9. Undisputedly, the assessee received share application money of Rs.4,50,00,000 from M/s. Lux Cityscapes Pvt. Ltd. in two different assessment years. However, the assessing officer added back the entire amount in assessment year 2012-13. While deciding assessee’s appeal in assessment year 2012-13, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that an amount of Rs.2,75,00,000 out of the total addition made related to assessment year 2011-12, hence, he deleted the addition to that extent. Basis aforesaid decision of the learned Commissioner 5 ITA No.1613/Del./2020 (Appeals), the assessing officer reopened the assessment for the impugned assessment year and while completing the assessment added back the amount of Rs.2,75,00,000. It is observed, while deciding assessee’s appeal in assessment year 2012-13, the Tribunal in ITA No.1299/Del/2016 dated 16,11,2021 has restored the issue relating to identical addition to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 10. Considering the fact that assessee’s appeal was disposed of ex parte by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and identical issue in assessment year 2011-12 has been restored back to the assessing officer, in the interest of fair play and justice as well as consistency in the matter, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the assessing officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 rd September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( DR. BRR KUMAR ) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23 rd September, 2022. Mohan Lal 6 ITA No.1613/Del./2020 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Sl. No. Particulars Date 1. Date of dictation (Order drafted through Dragon software): 19.09.2022 2. Date on which the draft of order is placed before the Dictating Member: 21.09.2022 3. Date on which the draft of order is placed before the other Member: .09.2022 4. Date on which the approved draft of order comes to the Sr. PS/PS: 22.09.2022 5. Date of which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement: 22.09.2022 6. Date on which the final order received after having been singed/pronounced by the Members: 23.09.2022 7. Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT: 26.09.2022 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 26.09.2022 9. Date on which files goes to the Head Clerk: 10. Date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: 11. Date of dispatch of order: