M/s. Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-2(1), Baroda

ITA 2707/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1377 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH WITH KINJAL SHAH
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: S H RI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER M/S. CHECHKMATE SECURITY SERVICE, GROUND FLOOR, SAJNI APARTMENTS, DALAL ROAD, FATEHGUNJ, BARODA - 390002 PAN: AABFC0553F (APPELLANT) VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), BARODA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI K. MADHUSUDAN , SR . D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI ANIL R. SHAH WITH KINJAL SHAH , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 04 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 - 06 - 2 0 16 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , AR ISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - II, BARODA DATED 01 - 09 - 2011 IN APPEAL NO. CAB/II - 225/10 - 11 , CONFIRMING SECTION 68 ADDITION OF RS. 8.60 LACS IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S . MURLIDHARAN DAS AND COM. , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 2707 / A HD/20 11 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 I.T. A NO. 2707 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. CHECKMATE SECURITY SERVICE VS. ACIT 2 2. THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS SECURITY SERVICES PROVIDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED IT TO HAVE RECEIVED LOAN IN QUESTION OF RS. 8,60,000/ - FRO M TH E ABOVE ENTITY. HE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY CONCLUDING THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE EVEN IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR IN QUESTION MUCH LESS THAN LEADING EVIDENCE ON GENUINENESS/CREDITWORTHINESS THEREOF. HE ACCORDINGLY FRAMED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT ON 24 - 12 - 2010. 3. T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. IT INTER ALIA HIGHLIGHTED THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED/REPAID BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. IT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M/S. MURLIDHAR A N D AS AN D CO. HAD FILED CONFIRMATION ON 29 - 11 - 2010 BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF. THE CIT(A) OBSERVES THAT THE ABOVE STATED CONFIRMATION DID NOT CONTAIN ANY PAN DETAILS AS WELL AS IT WAS AN UNSIGNED ONE. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTS ASSESSEE S CORRESPONDING ARGUMENTS THEREBY CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON. 4. LEARNED AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE TAKES US TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 01 CONTAINING ACCOUNTS OF M/S MURLIDHAR A N DAS AND CO MPANY . HE STATES ASSESSEE S ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED WITH A SUM OF RS. 4 LACS ON 15 - 02 - 2008, DEBITED BY THE VERY SUM ON 01 - 03 - 2008. T HIS IS FOLLOWED BY CREDIT AND DEBIT TRANSACTION OF RS. 4.6 LACS EACH ON 14 - 03 - 2008 AND 28 - 03 - 2008; RESPECTIVELY. ALL ARE STATED TO BE BY BANKING CHANNEL ONLY. THE ASSESSEE INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT M/S MURLIDHAR AN D AS AND COMPANY HAD BEEN HA VING REGULAR DEALINGS. ITS OPENING BALANCE AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS ON 01 - 04 - 20 07 IS OF I.T. A NO. 2707 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. CHECKMATE SECURITY SERVICE VS. ACIT 3 RS. 1 LACS. IT HAS PL ACED ON RECORD ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR NOT MAKING ANY ADDITION QUA THE SAID ENTITY DESPITE HAVING A RUNNI NG ACCOUN T. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY PRAYS A CCEPTANCE OF ITS APPEAL. THE RE VENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE CIT(A) S ORDER AFFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. UNDISPUTED FACTU AL POSITION IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND ASSESSEE S ACCOUNT CREDITED BY A SUM OF RS. 8,60,000/ - IN CASE OF M/S. MURLIDHAR AN D AS AND COMPANY. THE Y FILED CONFIRMATION OF THIS ENTITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO EVEN ISSUE A NOT ICE TO THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION. THIS CONFIRMATION FACT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN T H E ASSESSMENT ORDER . THE CIT(A) OBSERVES THAT THE ABOVE STATED CONFIRMATION FILED IN COURSE OF SCRUTINY DID NOT CON TAIN SIGNAT URES OF THE CONCERNED ENTITY. ALL THE ABOVE STATED EVIDENCE S ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). THE SA ME ARE NOWHERE DE A LT WITH MUCH LESS HAVING BEEN SPECIFICALLY REJECTED . IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED BANKING CHANNEL FOR RECEIVING PAYMENTS OF THE IMPUGNED AS WELL A S IN REPAYMENTS THEREOF IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. WE OBSERVE IN THESE FACT S THAT IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A CASE OF NO N FURNISHING OF IDENTITY OF M/S. MURLIDHAR AN D AS AND COMPANY. WE APPLY CASE LAW OF ( 2014) 224 TAXMAN 212 (GUJ) HOLDING THAT NO SUCH ADDITION OF CASH CREDIT IS TO BE MADE WHEN THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION ARE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND SOURCE THEREOF IS I.T. A NO. 2707 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. CHECKMATE SECURITY SERVICE VS. ACIT 4 EXPLAINED AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED SECTION 68 ADDITION OF RS. 8,60,000/ - MADE BY BO TH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL SUCCEEDS . ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 13 - 06 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AH MEDABAD : DATED 13 /06 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,