ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s RNG Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2144/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9723 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL ARORA
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(1); 147; 68

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.2144/DEL.2009 (A.Y. : 2001-02) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI) BEFORE AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN SHRI GEORGE MATHAN I.T.A. NO.2144/DEL./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) ACIT, CIRCLE 15(1), VS. RNG AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. (NOW AS R N G PACKAGING PVT. LTD.) 2096, KHUSAL RAI, KINARI BAZAR, DELHI-110 006. (PAN/GIR NO.AAAR1201R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL ARORA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SR.DR ORDER PER K.D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR AY 2001-02 ARISES O UT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI. THE MAIN GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.59,01,300/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.59,01,300/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.10.2001 WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS.59,01,300/- FROM M/S DIGNITY FINVEST ON 26.2.2001, REOPENED THE ASSESSME NT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED THE POSITION IN DETAIL BY GIVING AS MANY AS INFORMATION ON 38 POINTS. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT FROM M/S DIGNITY FINVEST DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION WAS TO BE MADE. THE AO, HOWEVER, WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE. HE IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE REWROTE A LETTER TO THE MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, RAM NAGAR GIVING THE DETAILS OF TRANSA CTION, BUT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM BANK. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED IN HIS 2 STATEMENT BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS PROVIDING ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. T HE AO, THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.59,01,300/-. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SIMILAR A RGUMENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY MONEY FROM M/S DIGNIT Y FINVEST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL POSITION CAREFULLY. T HE A.O. HAD MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIT(INV.), NEW DELHI, THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM CONCERN WHICH ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. HOWEVER, TH E A.O. COULD NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING RECEIVED OF THESE ENTRIES. THE APPELLANT HAD ARGUED THAT THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT EITHER IN CHEQUE OR OT HERWISE FORM M/S DIGNITY FINVEST. THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AND BANK ACCOUNTS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS ARGUMENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT . THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 READ AS UNDER: WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED OR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATI ON ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, I N THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE C HARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. AS PER SAID PROVISION WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDI TED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR THEN ONL Y THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 WILL BE APPLICABLE. SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CREDIT OF THE SAID AMOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, NO AMOUNT CAN BE ADDED U/S 68 OF I.T. ACT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 4. BEFORE US, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A O AND THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY MONEY HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FORM M/S DIGNITY FINVEST. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THE 3 ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IN FACT, ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY MONEY FROM M/S DIGNITY FINVEST WHICH IS EVIDENT FORM THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE CIT(A). SINCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.59,01,300/- HAS NOT BEEN CRE DITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS WHETHER ANY MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE OR NOT. SINCE NO MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 18.01.2010. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (K.D. RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, JAN. 18, 2010. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT 4