Income Tax Officer-3(1), Lucknow V. Smt. Beena Agarwal, Lucknow

ITA 805/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87832 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH AGARWAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 805 /LKW/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 1 0 - 20 1 1 I.T. O. WARD 3 (1) , LUCKNOW VS. S MT BEENA DEVI AGARWAL C 19, SECTOR E, ALIGANJ , LUCKNOW PAN:A CLPA9948C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI PUNIT KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI YOGESH AGARWAL , ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 24 /0 3 /201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 1 /0 3 /201 5 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. T HIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) I LUCKNOW DATED 28 .0 8 .2014 FOR A.Y. 20 1 0 201 1 . 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 19,94,541 MADE BY THE A. O. AS CAPITAL INFUSEMENT. 3 . LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT (A) AS PER PARA NO. 4.2 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. I FIND THAT THE CORRECT CLIENT CODE OF THE APPELLANT IS 200265. THE AO WHILE TABULATING THE TRANSACTIONS HAS PICKED UP THOSE TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH SOME OTHER CODE TO 200265. THE MAIN ALLEGATION OF THE AO IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INFUSED CAPITAL AND TRANSFERRED PROFIT OF OTHER CLIENTS TO HERSELF BY CHANGING THE CODES. ON PERUSAL OF THE TABLE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THE SAID ALLEGATION OF THE AO IS NOT FOUND TO BE 2 CORRECT. THE TRANSFER OF PROFIT/LOSS BY CHANGE OF CLIENT CODES MAY BE DIVIDED INTO FOUR CATEGORIES WHICH ARE AS UNDER: A. LOSS OF OTHER CLIENTS TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLANT :RS. 48,875 B. PROFIT OF THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT TRANSFERRED TO OTHER CLIENTS :RS. 8,27,811 C. LOSS OF THE APPELLANT TRANSFERRED TO OTHER CLIENTS :RS. 2,40,244 D. PROFIT OF OTHER S ACCOUNT TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLANT :RS. 8,77,611 IT I NOTED THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT IF THERE WERE TRANSACTIONS AS MENTIONED IN CATEGORIES C) AND D) ONLY. THE TRANSACTIONS AT A) AND B) WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT AND IN FACT RESULT INTO REDUCTION OF THE CAP ITAL. 5. THE REMAINING PORTION OF THIS PARA IS NOT BEING REPRODUCED BECAUSE EVEN AS PER THE FINDING OF LEARNED CIT (A) AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, WHEN THE TRANSACTION IN CATEGORIES A) AND B) ARE CONSIDERED, IT OFFSETS THE EFFECT OF CATEGORIES C) AND D) TO A LARGE EXTENT AND LEAVES AN AMOUNT OF ONLY RS. 241,169/. THIS FINDING IS ALSO GIVEN BY CIT (A) IN THE SAME PARA THAT THE A.O. HAS JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY. THESE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT (A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A). 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 1 /0 3 /201 5 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR