M/s. Harudev Mines & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Haldwani V. ACIT, Haldwani

ITA 6012/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4152 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMIL AGGARWAL SHRI LAKSHYA
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6012/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 HARUDEV MINES & MINERALS PVT. LTD., AMRAWATI COLONY, TALLI BAMORI, PHASE- 2, HALDWANI. VS. ACIT, HALDWANI. PAN : AACCD0319E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SOMIL AGGARWAL, SHRI LAKSHYA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 02-01-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-01-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2016 OF CIT(A), HALDWANI RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT QUASHING THE REASS ESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY LD. AO AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT COMPL YING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS OF SECTION 147 TO 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IN NOT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF THE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HALDWANI CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS OF RS. 24,00,000/- IN THE COMPANY ON THE SOLITARY BASIS OF UNVERIFIED INFORMA TION RECEIVED FROM DDIT, NEW DELHI ABOUT THE DIRECTORS OF INVESTEE COMPANIES IN COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE F ACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACT OF RECEIPT OF DIRECT CONFIRMATION BY T HE LD AO FROM THE INVESTEE COMPANIES ABOUT THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY 2 ITA NO.6012/DEL/2016 WHICH WAS CONTINUING TILL DATE AND THE AMOUNT WAS R EMITTED THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS DULY CONFIRMED. 5. THE LD. CIT APPEALS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BASED HIS ENTIRE DECISION ON THE ADVERSE FINDINGS BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF M R. VIRENDRA JAIN/S.K. JAIN GROUP WHICH WAS ALLEGEDLY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE THIRD PARTY ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE EVIDENCE THE MATTER WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF REQUESTS MADE IN WRITING. 6. THAT THE LD ACIT & CIT WERE NOT ABLE TO PLACE AN Y DIRECT OR INDIRECT ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORDS CORRELATING THE SUBJECT TRANSAC TION. 7. THAT THE LD ACIT & CIT WERE ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED I N REASSESSING THE MATTER U/S 148 WHEREIN THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS A LREADY COMPLETE AFTER VERIFYING THE DESIRED DETAILS BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MODI FY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL TH E ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDIT IONAL GROUNDS :- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT QUASHING THE IMPUG NED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO U/S 143(3)/147 AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUM ING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH MANDATORY CONDITIONS AS ENVI SAGED U/S 147 TO 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN NOT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO U/S 143(3)/147, IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS STATING THAT TH E GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY FRESH FACTS TO BE INV ESTIGATED. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL VS. ITO VIDE ITA NO.2476/DEL/2016 ORDER DATE D 18.12.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER ID ENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO 3 ITA NO.6012/DEL/2016 OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. I FIND UNDER IDENT ICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL (SUPRA) HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WI TH THE DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DEEM I T PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DE CIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD . CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACTS AND LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH JANUARY, 2018. SD/- (R. K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10-01-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI