ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. White Line Holdings (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5273/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 527320114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MEETA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJA
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Tax effect
• Section: 133(6); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5273/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ITO, M/S WHITE LINE HOLDINGS (P) WARD-18(3), LTD. D-28, SOUTH EXTN., NEW DELHI. V. PART-I, NEW DELHI. AND C.O. NO. 411/DEL/2010 (IN I.T.A. NO. 5273/DEL/20 10) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20054-05 M/S WHITE LINE HOLDINGS ITO, (P) LTD., D-28, SOUTH EXTN. WARD-18 (3), PART-I, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AAACG AAACG AAACG AAACG- -- -3680 3680 3680 3680- -- -R RR R DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. MEETA SINHA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ADVOCATE. ORDER PER BENCH; THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST WHICH CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) XXI, NEW DELHI DATED 7.10.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE A S UNDER:- THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND TO LAW BY DEL ETING ADDITION OF ` .6,59,205/- COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS COMMISSI ON ITA NO5273-411/DEL/2010 2 INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY IGNORING THAT: 1. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT HAD INDULGED IN SHARE TRADING ACTIVITIES THROUGH M/S SJ CAPITAL LTD. WAS PRO VED TO BE FALSE. 2. THE DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE CONFIRMED U/S 133(6) THAT N O TRANSACTION WAS DONE BY M/S SJ CAPITAL LTD. DURING THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT NOTE COPIES FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. 3. NEITHER THE DIRECTOR OF M/S SJ CAPITAL LTD. SHRI JAG DISH CHAND GUPTA NOR ANY RESPONSIBLE PERSON FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ATTENDED IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. FIELD ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REVE ALED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF M/S SJ CAPITAL LTD. DID NOT RESI DE AT THE ADDRESSES AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE FREQUENCY OF DEPOSITS/WITHDRAWALS AT SHORT INTERVA LS EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD NO ACTUAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY LEADS CREDENCE TO THE FACT THAT IT PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 6. THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE CASH DEPOSITS AND OTHER UNEXPLAIN ED DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY IT WAS ESTABLISHED. 2. GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING TH E ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS OF SECTION 14 7 TO 153 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND REOPENING OF T HE CASE IS BAD IN LAW AND BEYOND JURISDICTION OF THE LD ASSESSING O FFICER. ITA NO5273-411/DEL/2010 3 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING TH E ACTION OF LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS PER LAW THAT TOO UPON THIS CO MPANY NAMELY M/S WHITE LINE HOLDINGS (P) LTD. WHICH WAS NO T EXISTING WHEN NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AND WHEN IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED, SINCE IT STOOD AMALGAMATED BEFORE THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WITH THE OT HER COMPANY NAMELY M/S GCB CAPITAL FINANCE LTD. 3. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ACTION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD ASSESSING OFFI CER IN FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT UPON M/S WHITE LINE HOLDINGS (P) LTD. IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF TH E CASE, ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, BEYOND JURISDICTION VOID AB IN ITO AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 4. THAT THE CROSS OBJECTOR CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEN D, MODIFY DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR FILED COPY OF COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME TAX FORM AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT GRO SS TAX DEMAND IN THE CASE WORKS OUT TO BE ` .2,40,,008/- INCLUDING SUR CHARGE OF ` .5853/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ` .6,69,015/-/ ON WHICH NET TAX EFFECT COMES TO ` .2,36,408/- (INCLUDING SURCHARGE). IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SUM LESS THAN ` . 3 LAKHS AND VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011 OF 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL IN INCOME TAX MATTERS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS FIXED AT ` .3 LAKHS. HE FURTHER ARGUED ITA NO5273-411/DEL/2010 4 THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE APPLICABL E TO ALL PENDING APPEALS BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT V., M/S PS JAIN & CO. IN I.T.A. NO.179/1991, ORD ER DATED 2 ND AUGUST, 2010. 2. CIT V. DELHI RACE CLUB IN I.T.A. NO.128/2008, ORDER DATED 3 RD MARCH, 2011. IN VIEW OF THIS, HE ARGUED THAT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BE DISMISSED. 4. THE LD DR WANTED TO GO THROUGH THE CALCULATION O F DEMAND OF INCOME TAX TO WHICH LD AR FURNISHED TO HER COPY OF INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CALCUL ATION CHART, SHE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE AMOUNT OF DEMAND. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAS GONE THRO UGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD., WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE DEMAN D MADE BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN ` .3 LAKHS AND IN VIEW OF INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011 OF 9.2.2011, THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 6. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT FIXED BY THE AFOREME NTIONED CIRCULAR IS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 7. THEREFORE THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE COMES INFRUCTUOUS & HENCE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, T HE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23RD DAY O F OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT.23.10.2012. HMS ITA NO5273-411/DEL/2010 5 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 23.10.2012 DATE OF DICTATION 23.10.2012 DATE OF TYPING 23.10.2012 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY 23.10.2012 BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET 30.10.2012 & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.