ITO 22(1)-4, NAVI MUMBAI V. PRITI SALES CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 6025/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 602519914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A PANT IZRFKHZ DH LS
• Assessee Lawyers: SATENDRA

Judgement Text

- 1 - VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K LH U;K;IHB EQACBZ ESAA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUM BAI JH JKTSUNZ FLAG YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH LAT; XXZ U;KF;D L NL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K /ITA NO.6025/MUM/2011 FU/KKZJ.K O'KZ @ ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 2003-04 INCOME TAX OFFICER 22[1]-4. R. NO. 412, 4 TH FLOOR, TOWER NO. 6, VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI 400 705. CUKE@ VS. PRITI SALES CORPORATION 6, SAMATA BUILDING, HINGWALAL LANE, GHATKOPAR (EAST), MUMBAI 400 077. PAN:- AAEFP8205E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VIHYKFKHZ DH VKSJ LS @ APPELLANT BY SHRI R.A PANT IZR;FKHZ DH VKSJ LS @ RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. GOPAL AND SHRI SATENDRA PANDEY VKNS'K@ VKNS'K@ VKNS'K@ VKNS'K@ ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20-6-2011 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE REVENUE IN THI S APPEAL HAS RAISED DISPUTES ON TWO DIFFERENT GROUNDS WHICH RELATE TO ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF LOAN AND ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN SUBSTANTIAL LOANS AND DEPOSITS E XCEEDING RS. 1 CRORE. HE THEREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATIONS. BUT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT FILE CONFIRMATION IN LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING 29-7-2013 ?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 7-8-2013 - 2 - RESPECT OF LOAN OF RS. 6,00,000/- FROM M/S BHARTIYA ALLOYS & STEEL CASTING. THE AO, THEREFORE TREATED THE SAID SUM AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL UNSECURED CREDITORS RUNNIN G INTO MORE THAN A CRORE. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS FROM WHICH THE AO NOTED TH AT IN RESPECT OF H.V. ENTERPRISES, M/S SUBODH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD, AGARWAL TRADING CO, A ND M/S AIR CARRYING CORP INDIA LTD THERE WERE NO OPENING BALANCES WHICH SHOWED THAT TH ESE WERE NEW CREDITORS. THE AO, THEREFORE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1762986 IN RESPECT O F CREDIT BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN RELATION TO THESE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATION. 3. IN APPEAL CIT(A) REMANDED THE MATTER TO AO FOR F RESH EXAMINATION . THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 25.4.2011 STATED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION FROM M/S BHARATIYA ALLOYS & STEEL CASTING AND THE VERIFICATI ON OF THE CONFIRMATION SHOWED THAT THE TRANSACTION APPEARED GENUINE. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT MENTIONED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED CONFIRMATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE BUT THE CONFIRMATION HAVING BEEN FILED NOW, THE TRANSACTION APPEARED GENUINE. A FTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITI ONS MADE, AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE US THE LEARNED DR APPEARING FOR THE REVEN UE SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE LOAN CREDIT OF RS. 6,00,000/- THERE WAS AN EQUAL CASH WI THDRAWAL ON THE SAME DATE. SIMILARLY, THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S H.V. ENTERPRISES SHOWED SUB STANTIAL CASH WITHDRAWALS WHICH CORRESPONDED TO THE PAYMENT MADE FOR ALLEGED PURCHA SES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT EXAMINING THE MATTER PROPERLY AND, THE REFORE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. THE LEARNED AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED T HAT THERE WAS NO BAR ON MAKING CASH WITHDRAWALS AND THE LEARNED DR HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT CIT(A) HA D ALLOWED THE RELIEF ONLY ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT OF AO WHICH NOW CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BEFORE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED MATTE R CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN AND SUNDRY CR EDITORS. THE AO HAD MADE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED CONFIRMA TIONS. SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BY A O BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE - 3 - FILED CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT MENTIONED THAT TRANSACTIONS APPEARED GENUINE. THERE WAS NO ADVERSE MATERIAL PLACED BY AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. CIT(A) THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE REMAND REPOR T DELETED THE ADDITION. THE DEPARTMENT NOW CANNOT CHALLENGE THE FINDING OF AO BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. THE ONLY POINT MADE BEFORE US IT THAT THERE WERE CASH WITHDRAWALS WITHOUT SHOWING AS TO HOW CASH WITHDRAWALS AFFECTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. SINCE THE CIT ( A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BASED ON THE REMAND REPORT, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 -8-201 3 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (RAJENDRA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SKS SR. P.S, MUMBAI DATED 7.8.2013 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI