M/s. Poddar Advantage Advisors Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 3, Panvel

ITA 1899/PUN/2018

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by M/s. Poddar Finin Consultancy Private Limited and M/s. Poddar Advantage Advisors Private Limited against the orders of the CIT(A)-2, Thane, which were passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14. The appeals challenged the additions made under section 56(2)(viib) concerning share premium and section 68 regarding unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal noted that the assessees did not appear for the hearings and failed to provide necessary documentation to substantiate their claims during both the initial assessments and the subsequent remand proceedings. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments and the principles of burden of proof to affirm the additions made by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137285 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 461 (SC), Pr. CIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC), MSPL Ltd. vs. PCIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 379 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1898/PUN/2018 Assessment Year 2013-14 M/s. Poddar Finin Consultancy Private Limited, 4 A/B, Ground Floor, TK Industrial Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai. PIN 400 015 PAN AAGCP3938D vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3, Panvel. Maharashtra. Applicant Respondent ITA No.1899/PUN/2018 Assessment Year 2013-14 M/s. Poddar Advantage Advisors Private Limited, 4 A/B, Ground Floor, TK Industrial Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai. PIN 400 015 PAN AAGCP3935Q vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3, Panvel. Maharashtra. Applicant Respondent Assessee by : -None- Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 27.03.2023 Date of pronouncement : 30.03.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : These twin assessees’ as many appeals, for assessment year 2013-14, arise against the CIT(A)-2, Thane’s common order dated 28.09.2018 passed in case nos.11001 & 10217/2016-17 respectively, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2 ITA.Nos.1898 & 1899/PUN./2018 M/s. Poddar Finin Consultancy Private Limited & Anr., Mumbai. Cases called twice. None appears at assessees’ behest. They are accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that these twin assessees’ have raised their identical as many substantive grounds challenging correctness of learned lower authorities action making sec.56(2)(viib) additions of share premium amounting to Rs.22,32,50,000/- and Rs.34,67,50,000/- followed by unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of Rs.3,96,31,900/- and Rs.4,61,61,900/-, case-wise, respectively. 3. Learned CIT-DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the former assessee herein M/s. Poddar Finin Consultancy Private Limited had filed it’s appeal ITA.No.1007/PUN./2018 challenging similar addition u/s.68 involving unexplained cash credits of Rs.12.10 crores which stands upheld by the tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order dated 23.09.2022 for succeeding assessment year 2014-15. He has also filed on record the copy of the tribunal’s order to this effect inter alia holding therein that the instant former assessee had failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of the unexplained cash credits in issue in light of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT vs. NRA Iron & SteelPvt. Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 461 (SC) and that any evidence tendered in income tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities, after removing all blinkers and 3 ITA.Nos.1898 & 1899/PUN./2018 M/s. Poddar Finin Consultancy Private Limited & Anr., Mumbai. mere filing of documentary evidence does not mean that the foregoing three parameters of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, and more particularly, the latter two, stand discharged. 4. The factual position is hardly found to be any different qua the former issue of sec.56(2)(viib) addition(s) as well wherein both these assessees’ have not filed all the requisite details, and more particularly, the justification for having received varying sums of exorbitant share premium. We make it clear that this statutory provision casts onus on the concerned taxpayer to justify its share premium vis-à-vis fair market value as per the prescribed methods. It is in this backdrop that we note from a combined perusal of both these case files that not only the assessees’ have failed to file all the supporting evidences during the course of assessments dated 23.03.2016 but also in remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer in light of CIT(A)'s corresponding directions. We, therefore, adopt judicial consistency in this factual backdrop and affirm both the learned lower authorities action making these twin additions u/s.56(2)(viib) and that of unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. Ordered accordingly. 4. We make it clear before parting the assessee have been stated to have filed transfer petition(s) as well on the ground that their head office(s) are located in Mumbai. And that they are facing bad financial conditions and low man power capacity. We conclude 4 ITA.Nos.1898 & 1899/PUN./2018 M/s. Poddar Finin Consultancy Private Limited & Anr., Mumbai. that hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Pr. CIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC) has settled the law that it is situs of the Assessing Officer which forms the clinching factor for exercising the appellate jurisdiction. We further take note of hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision [2021] 127 taxmann.com 379 (Bom.) MSPL Ltd. vs. PCIT that such a transfer prayer is nowhere maintainable u/s.255 of the Act. We lastly conclude that the Assessing Officer(s) herein i.e., then ITO, Ward-3, Panvel had framed his assessments, both dated 23.03.2016 which are covered under the territorial jurisdiction of Pune Benches of the “tribunal” as per the Standing Order under Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 w.e.f. 01.10.1997 defining the territorial jurisdiction of all benches of the Tribunal. 5. These twin assessee’s as many appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.03.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. PADMAHSHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 30 th March, 2023 VBP/- 5 ITA.Nos.1898 & 1899/PUN./2018 M/s. Poddar Finin Consultancy Private Limited & Anr., Mumbai. Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. The Appellant; 2. The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A)-2, Room No.29, B-Wing, 6 th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane – 400 604. 4. 5. 6. The Pr.CIT-2, Thane The DR ‘A’, ITAT, Pune Guard File BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune