ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. SRB Investment & Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2506/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6889 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2506 /DEL/201 5 A.Y. : 20 1 0 - 1 1 ITO, WARD - 24(2), ROOM NO. 236, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI VS. M/S SRB INVESTMENT & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 135, GOLF LINKS, NEW DELHI 110 003 (PANAALCS9491H) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : NONE ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, NEW DELHI D ATED 12.2.2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS THAT ASSE SSEE HAD ITSELF ADMITTED DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS THAT IN T HIS CASE THERE IS A APPARENT CASH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN MADE BY 2 ASSESSEE AND IN EVERY MANNER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCE OF RECEIVING / GIVING THE AMOUNT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD O R FORGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURI NG THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS COMPLETED O N 4.3.2013 AT A LOSS OF RS. 2,13,144/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS . 34,00,000/- FROM SH. SIDDARATH BISHNOI OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAY EE CHQEUE OR BANK DRAFT. THE AO CONSIDERED THE TRANSACTIONS IN VIOLAT ION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE A.R. OF THE AS SESSEE TO THE AO THAT THER WAS NO INVOLVEMENT OF CASH , IT WAS ONLY JOURN AL ENTRIES PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSEES COMPANY. HOWEVER , THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION FORMED OPINIO N THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS WILLFULLY TAKEN THE ENTRIES TO HIDE THE TRANSACTION AND ACCORDINGLY, LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS. 34,00,000/- U /S. 271D OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.8.2013. AGGRIEVED WITH THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT (OSD)(APPE ALS-8), NEW DELHI WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER 12.02.2015 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE. 3 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE O RDER PASSED BY THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTE R IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND T HE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND A GAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT AP PEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS ACCEPTED BY EN TRY. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO RECEIPT OF MONEY THROUGH CASH OR CHEQUE OR A NY OTHER MODE BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE MONEY WAS GIVEN ON BEHALF O F SH. KULDEEP BISHNOI WAS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, HENCE, TH E PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT( A), WHICH DOES NOT 4 NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, THEREFORE, WE U PHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 02/07/2018. S SS SD DD D/ // /- -- - S SS SD DD D/ // /- -- - [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 02/07/2018 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 5