DCIT, CC-XXVII, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Raghunath Prasad Tibrewala, Kolkata

ITA 323/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48228 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K ROY
• Keywords: Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH B, KOLKATA () BEFORE . .. . . .. . , , , , , SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , #$ SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %& %& %& %& ' ' ' ' / ITA NOS . 322-325 /KOL/2010 () *+/ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 , 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08 (-. / APPELLANT ) D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVII, KOLKATA - ( - - VERSUS - . (01-./ RESPONDENT ) RAGHUNATH PRASAD TIBREWALA, KOLKATA (PAN: ABSPT 2068 GP) -. 2 3 #/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.K.ROY 01-. 2 3 #/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN #4 / ORDER 56 56 56 56 PER BENCH THE ABOVE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AG AINST SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30.11.2009 OF THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL- II, KOLKATA PERTA INING TO A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2007- 08 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL TH E FOUR APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF TOGETHER BY A COMMON ORDER. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.YRS.2004-05 TO 2007-08 :- 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 1,91,925/- (RS.50,70,492/- IN A.YR.2005-06; RS.49,42,311/- IN A.YR.2006-07 AND RS.22,96,038/- IN A.YR.2007-08)ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED COMMISSION INC OME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE EVALUATED IN COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT BY 2 THE AO WAS INCORRECT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CIRCU MSTANTIAL EVIDENCES AND MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO. 3. THAT THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND/OR ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMIT TED THAT THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THE A MOUNT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE APPEALS ARE ARISING IN VIEW OF SEARCH CONDUCTED AGAINST RAM SWARUP GROUP OF COMPANIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT SHRI ASHISH JHUNJHUNWALA AND ITS GROUP OF COMPANIES HAD GONE TO SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, AND SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE ORDER DATED 06.04.2010 I N PARA 9 THEREOF AFTER CONSIDERING IMPUGNED ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS INTER ALIA OF APPLICANTS WITH ASSESSEE HEREIN ARE GENUINE. THE LE ARNED A.R. REFERRED TO PARA 9.3. OF THE SAID ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SETTLEMENT CO MMISSION HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS.). 3.1. THE LEARNED A.R. REFERRED TO SECTION 245-1 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION P ASSED U/S 245D(4) IS CONCLUSIVE. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. HAS NOT DISPUTED ABOVE SUBMISS IONS OF THE LEARNED A.R. SAVE AND EXCEPT RELYING ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGH T OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 245-I OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER OF HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION DATED 06.04.2010, (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) WE OBSERVE FROM PARA 9 OF THE SAI D ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 06.04.2010 THAT THE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTE NTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS INTER ALIA, OF THE ASSESSEE WITH APPLI CANTS WERE GENUINE AND THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDUCE ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND CONSIDE RING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 245-I OF THE ACT, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF ALL THE APPEALS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT AS THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE HON BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAVE 3 BECOME CONCLUSIVE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE AGITATED B Y THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HEREIN. HENCE, WE REJECT THE GROUNDS OF AP PEALS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE DEPART MENT ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.06.2011. SD/- SD/- . .. . . .. . , , , , B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , ,, , #$ #$ #$ #$ , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ('$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATE: 28.06.2011. #4 2 0& 7#&*8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. RAGHUNATH PRASAD TIBREWALA, P-236, CIT ROAD, SCH-IV M, KOLKATA- 700010. 2 THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVII, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 1& 0/ TRUE COPY, #4(=/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.)