M/s. Sumeru Health Wines India Pvt.Ltd, Latur V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2, Latur

ITA 165/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0356 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.165/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S. SUMERU HEALTH WINES INDIA PVT. LTD., SUMERU HEALTH WINES INDIA PVT. LTD., SWATISHRI, YESHWANT COLONY, BEHIND ZILLA PARISHAD, BARSHI ROAD, LATUR. PAN : AANCS5225R. . / APPELLANT V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, LATUR. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K. VERMA. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 2, AURANGABAD DATED 22. 08.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF WINE BUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION NO BUSINESS OR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT BY T HE ASSESSEE. / DATE OF HEARING : 14.03.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.03.2019 2 ITA NO.165/PUN/2018 ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 20 13-14 ON 20.03.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.3,50,000/-. AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.22.08.2017 (IN APPEAL NO. ABD/CIT(A)-2/347/2016-17) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), AS SESSEE IS NOW BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WITHOUT CONSIDERING LAW , F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN IT'S TRUE SENSE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEAL-II), AURANGABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF AMOUNT RS. 3,50 , 000/--. THE SAID ADDITION OF INCOME IS EXCLUSIVELY ON ESTIMA TE BASIS AND IGNORING THE RELEVANT FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL-I I) , AURANGABAD , HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A T RS. 3,50,000/- AS AN ADDITION OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNDER SECTION 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED IDENTITY PROOFS OF THE CREDITORS ALONG WI TH ALL THE CONFIRMATIONS AND SOURCES OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY GIVEN . THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICE HAS TAKEN ON RECORD STATE MENT ON OATHS OF THE CREDITORS. THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED THE LEG AL OBLIGATIONS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUCH CREDITS AS A PPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3. BOTH THE GROUNDS BEING INTER-CONNECTED ARE CONSIDERED TOG ETHER. 4. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 68 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED SWORN AFFIDAV IT OF DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT DUE TO THE SAD DEMISE OF DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, HE AND THE OTHER DIRECTOR S OF THE COMPANY WERE DISTURBED AND WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO GE T THE APPEAL FILED AND THUS THE DELAY WAS OCCURRED AND FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE DELAY IS NOT INTENTIONAL AND THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE DE LAY OF 68 DAYS BE CONDONED. LD.D.R. DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE PRAYER OF CONDON ATION. 3 ITA NO.165/PUN/2018 5. ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY OF APPEAL, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ASSESSE ES COMPANY AND HEARD THE LD.D.R. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REASONS STATE D IN THE AFFIDAVIT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APP EAL HAS BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTIC ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD COLLECTED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.12,33,0 00/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SHARE APP LICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF PERSONS FROM WHOM THE MONEY WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN R ECEIVED AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IDE NTITY PROOFS, CONFIRMATIONS, 7/12 EXTRACTS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS IN SUPPO RT OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS. THEREAFTER, THE STATEMENTS OF THE SU BSCRIBERS WERE ALSO RECORDED BY THE AO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXE RCISE CARRIED OUT BY HIM, AO OUT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.12,33,000 /- TREATED SHARE APPLICATION OF RS.8,83,000/- AS EXPLAINED AND THE BALAN CE OF RS.3,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE ITS ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A). LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4 ITA NO.165/PUN/2018 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.3,50,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. DURING TH E YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.12,33,000/-. AO FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE ADDITION O F RS.3,50,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY E XPLAIN THE SOURCE. WE FIND THAT WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF AO, LD.CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS WAS STATED TO BE SALE OF AGRICULT URAL PRODUCE. HE HAS NOTED THAT NONE OF THE PERSONS WERE ABLE TO PROD UCE ANY SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND THEREFORE AO OUT OF THE TOTAL SUM RECEIVED, CONSIDERED RS.3,50,000/- TO BE UNEXPLAINED AND MADE ITS ADDITION. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION AND RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOFTLINE CREATIONS (P) LTD ., REPORTED IN 387 ITR 636 HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. BEFORE US, ASS ESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY FALLACY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A). IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/ - ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 29 TH MARCH, 2019. YAMINI 5 ITA NO.165/PUN/2018 #$%&'(' % / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-2, AURANGABAD. PR. CIT-2, AURANGABAD. '#$ %%&',) &', *+ / DR, ITAT, SMC PUNE; $-.// GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 012%3&4 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &' , / ITAT, PUNE.