ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Emdet Jamshedpur (P) Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 4815/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8111 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA I.T.A. NO. 4815/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IT, VS. M/S. EMDET JAMSHEDPUR (P) CIRCLE 11(1), LTD., F-406, MAIN MATHURA NEW DELHI. ROAD, SARITA VIHAR, N.DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANISH GUPTA, DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 14.10.2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,10,000. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11 .2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.21,41,869. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDING LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT HE RECEIVED AN INFORMATION FROM AIS INDICATING THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT FOR PU RCHASE OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND WITH RELIANCE MUTUAL FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10 ,000. ASSESSING OFFICER 2 DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT IS REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005- 06, IT HAD INVESTED ITS TEMPORARY SURPLUS FUNDS IN RELIANCE LIQUID FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,10,000. THE INVESTMENT WAS PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE COMPANYS BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EXHIBITING SUCH INVESTMENT BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE THROUGH BANK A CCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK, JAMSHEDPUR BRANCH. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISPUT E ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS. HIS ONLY GRIEVANCE WAS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE INVESTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON ASSETS SIDE. HE, THEREFORE, MA DE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,10,000. 3. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTMENT IN RELIANCE LIQUID FUNDS AS ON 31.3 .2006 WAS ONLY RS.84,99,930.89 BECAUSE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS.25,25,000 FROM THE LIQUID FUND INV ESTMENT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE INVESTMENT IN RELIANCE LIQUID FUN D HAD THE SAME CHARACTER AS THAT OF MONEY AVAILABLE WITH THE BANK BECAUSE ASSES SEE CAN CALL BACK THIS INVESTMENT AT ANY POINT OF TIME. IT HAS SHOWN THE B ALANCE WITH THE RELIANCE LIQUID FUND ALONG WITH THE BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH T HE BANKS UNDER THE HEAD 3 SECURED LOANS. THE INVESTMENT IN THE LIQUID FUND WAS PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND THE SOURCE OF MAKING INVESTMENT WAS A LSO DISCLOSED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW S AID INVESTMENT UNDER THE HEAD CASH/BANK BALANCE OR UNDER THE HEAD INVESTM ENT ON ASSETS SIDE. MERELY INTER-CHANGE OF HEAD OF BALANCE SHEET WILL N OT BE SUFFICIENT TO HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING AND ADJOURN MENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED DR WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULL Y AND WE DID NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO GIVEN AN ADJOURNMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. ITS APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED. ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED TH E SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE RELIANCE LIQUID FUNDS. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SOURCE AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTMENT. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOW N THE ABOVE INVESTMENT ON THE ASSETS SIDE IN THE BALANCE SHEET. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS SHOWN THE INVESTMENT UNDER THE HEAD CASH/BANK BALANCE. IN SUCH SITUATION, WE ARE 4 OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY DISCL OSED ALL THE ITEMS AND THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED ANY PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH HE WAS MAKI NG THE ADDITION. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITI ON. NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN HIS ORDER. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.02.2010 ( R.C. SHARMA ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: /02/2010 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR