Balaji Construction , Pune V. Income Tax Officer Ward -7(3), Pune

ITA 9/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2117 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 143(3); 251; 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.9/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Balaji Construction, Balaji Palace, Sr. No.8, Solapur By-Pass, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. PAN : AABFB0167E Vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)-5, Pune’s order dated 21.05.2018 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO, Wd-7(3), Pune/10192/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of addition amount of Rs.12,30,417/- made in the course of assessment as an instance of Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 28.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2022 ITA No.9/PUN/2021 2 cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act; which in turn has been treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement rival stands against and in support of the foregoing twin issues involving the very sum of Rs.12,30,417/-. Suffice to say, Mr. Jasnani could not pinpoint any specific material on assessee’s books evidencing actual cessation or remission; as the case may be, so as to attract section 41(1) of the Act. I thus quote CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (2014) 43 taxmann.com 55 (Gujarat) and Vardhman Overseas (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Delhi) to delete the impugned addition for this precise reason alone. 4. The legal position regarding section 68 addition of the very sum also fails the test of legality as it amount to hold together a new head of income in first appellate proceedings not sustainable in light of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyres (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Sardarilal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB). The same also stands deleted therefore. ITA No.9/PUN/2021 3 No other ground or argument has been pressed during the course of hearing. 5. Delay of 850 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned since majority of this prescribed limitation falls in Covid-19 Pandemic outbreak. The Revenue’s is also fair enough in not disputing the assessee’s solemn averments in its condonation petition/affidavit dated 06.01.2021. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 28 th day of July, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 28 th July, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-5, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.