ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Rockland Media & Communiciation Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati

ITA 3052/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6824 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH GAUTAM JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 133A; 153A; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3052/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) VS. ROCKLAND MEDIA & COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., 62, DR. ANIL PHOOKAN PATH, BONNGAON, GUWAHATI. PAN AADCR5052M (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SURENDER PAL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY S/SH. GAUTAM JAIN & LALIT MOHAN, CA ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2016 OF LD. CIT(A)-24, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AN D ON FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,46,90,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AN D SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF COMPANIES OF ROCKLA ND GROUP AS WELL AS AT RESIDENTIAL DATE OF HEARING 27.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.04.2019 ITA NO. 3052/DEL/2016 2 PREMISES OF DIRECTORS ON 06.09.2011 AND SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS ALSO CONDUCTED AT VARIOUS PREMISES OF GROUP CASES. NOTICE U/S. 153A A ND OTHER STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN D ECLARING NIL INCOME. IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE DOCUMENTS FOUND WERE MARKED AS ANN EXURE A-1 TO A-132 AND SEIZED. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN TO THE PARTIES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : ANNEXURE PARTICULARS AMOUNT PARTY S - 1 , A - 2, PAGE 55 TEMPORARY LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. SHARPLINE PUBLICITY PRIVATE LIMITED, 190000 PARTY S - 1 , A - 2, PAGE 54 TEMPORARY LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. SHARPLINE PUBLICITY PRIVATE LIMITED, 600000 PARTY S - 1 , A - 2, PAGE 53 TEMPORARY LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 3400000 PARTY S - 1 , A - 2, PAGE 49 TEMPORARY LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. PATLIPUTR BUILDERS LIMITED, 2050000 PARTY S - 1 , A - 2, PAGE 49 TEMPORARY LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. PATLIPUTR BUILDERS LIMITED, 2400000 PARTY S - 1 , A - 2, PAGE 49 TEMPORARY LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. PATLIPUTR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 1750000 . __ . PARTY S - 1 , A - 2, PAGE 49 TEMPORARY LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. PATLIPUTR BUIIDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 1690000 PARTY S - 1 , A - 2, PAGE 49 TEMPORARY LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. PATLIPUTR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 1500000 IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 31.03.2014 FILED ITS REPLY WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES AND NOTICES U/S. 133(6) ISSUED TO M/S. PATILPUTRA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND SHARP LINE P UBLICITY PVT. LTD. WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH SOME DOCUMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED ITA NO. 3052/DEL/2016 3 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADMITTED WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CI T(A) HAS MERELY ACCEPTED THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. PATILPUTRA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., M/S. SADHNA MEDIA & COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. AND M/S. SHARP LINE PUBLICI TY PVT. LTD. WHEREAS THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 133(6) WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. THEREFOR E, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION OF TH E DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ONLY BANK STATEMENTS WERE FI LED WHEREIN THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY REFLECTED WHICH HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LD. C IT(A). HE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUPPORTE D THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT THE THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT VERIFICATION OF TRANSACTIONS FROM BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FURTHER SILENT TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ITS BANK STATEMENT/ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SO AS TO GET THE TRANSACTIONS VERIFIED WHICH ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH B ANKING CHANNEL. THE BANK STATEMENT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AS SPEAKS THE IMPUGNED ITA NO. 3052/DEL/2016 4 ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CATEGORICALLY SHOWS THA T THE ASSESSEE EVEN FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM TH E ALLEGED LOANS WERE GIVEN. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED TO TWO OF THE PARTIES STOOD UN-COMPLIED WITH. SOME OF THE AMOUNTS OF LOANS NOTED ON SOME O F THE PAGES OF SEIZED ANNEXURE A-2 ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN CLUBBED ON OTHER PAGES OF SAID ANNEXURE. THERE IS ADMITTEDLY NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD FROM THE RECIPIENT S CONFIRMING THE RECEIPT OF IMPUGNED LOANS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT TRIED TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION EXCEPT ISSUING NOTICES U/S. 133(6). IN PRESENCE OF THESE FACTS, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTIONS PROPERLY AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO AFTER GIVI NG PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.04.2019. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (L.P. S AHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29.04.2019 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI