IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 35 /P A N/201 6 (ASST. YEAR : 20 12 - 1 3 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI GOA. VS. M/S. KARTHIK INDUCTIONS LTD., PLOT NO. 120, 121, KUNDAIM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KUNDAIM GOA. PAN NO. AAACK 7735 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAGARAJ KALE C A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR - DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 / 0 5 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 / 0 5 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , PANAJI - 1 IN APPEAL NO.168/CIT(A)PNJ - 1/15 - 16 , DATED 09 /12 /201 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 . 2. SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR , DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI NAGARAJ KALE , CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY 2 ITA NO. 35 /P A N/201 6 INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4 . IN REPLY, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO P A GE NO. 6 AT PARA 5.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) . I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF 11,49,00,000/ - WAS THE AMOUNT DUE BY RUKMINIRAMA STEEL ROLLING PVT. LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLIES MADE TO THEM OF THE FINISHED GOODS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSE SSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPLIED FINISHED GOODS TO THE EXTENT OF MORE THAN 60 CRORES TO THE SAID COMPANY . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS RUKMINIRAMA STEEL ROLLING PVT. LTD. WAS FACING FINANCIAL CRUNCH, THE PAYMENTS WERE BEING RELEASED TO THE ASSESSEE BELATEDLY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MISTAKEN THE FACTS AND HAD TREATED THE SAME AS SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE BEING NO SHARE APPLICATION INVOLVED, NO ADDITION BY INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TR E ATED THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING FROM RUKMINIRAMA STEEL ROLLING PVT. LTD. AS THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID COMPANY , WHEREA S THE SAID AMOUNT WAS A TRADE DEBT. THIS IS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISLODGE TH I S FINDING OF FACT AS RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS ON RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 3 ITA NO. 35 /P A N/201 6 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY , THE 0 4 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 0 4 TH MAY , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI