Pawak Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-6(2), Kanpur

ITA 919/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4704 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.919/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), CIVIL LINES, KANPUR VS PAWAK CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. C-56 UDYOD KUNJ PANKI SITE V KANPUR PAN AADCP 2864 P (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI R.R. JAIN, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 20/01/2016 DATE OF HEARING 19 /0 2 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A)-I, KANPUR DATED 24.09.2014 FOR THE AY 2000-01. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT INITIAL ONUS WAS DISCHARGED BY F ILLING OF CONFIRMATION OF SHARE APPLICANT. 2. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT RETURN OF ALLOTMENT IN RE SPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS ON RECORD OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALBEIT IN RELATION TO SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR VIZ A.Y. 2001-02. ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF WHICH WAS PASSED ON THE SAME DATE. 3. WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION RELIANCE UPON JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IS MISPLACED, 2 4. IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PRODUCE SUSTAINING OF ADDITION IS NOT TENABLE UNDER LAW IN FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE LIST OF SHARE APPLICANTS WITH THEIR COMPLETE POSTAL ADDRESSES AND NOTICES U/S 133 (6) WERE ISSUED TO THEM AND REPLIED WERE R ECEIVED FROM THEM ALONG WITH THEIR CONFIRMATION AND THEREAFTER, THE A SSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE 38 PERSONS FROM WHO M SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED BUT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ONLY 1 3 PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.5.00 LAKH BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM THE REMAINING 25 PERSONS WHO COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFO RE HIM AND LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.60,000/- IN RESPECT OF THOSE THREE PERSONS WHO WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND CONFIRMED THE AMOUNT O F RS.4,40,000/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTLY FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS, THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT J USTIFIED. 4. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AU THORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE LIST OF SHARE APPLICANTS WITH THEIR COMPL ETE POSTAL ADDRESSES AND NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE RECEIVED TO THEM AND REPLIES ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION WERE ALSO RECEIVED FROM THEM. THE ADDI TION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF 25 PERSONS AT THE R ATE OF RS.20,000/- EACH BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WHEN THE FULL ADDRESS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 133 (6) WERE SE RVED ON THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND REPLIES ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION WERE RECEIVED FROM THEM BY 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTLY, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPT ED THAT THEIR IDENTITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. REGARDING THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS , WE FEEL THAT FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.20,000/- PER PERSON, CREDITWORTH INESS COULD NOT BE DOUBTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON R ECORD PARTICULARLY WHEN CONFIRMATION WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER DIRECTLY FROM THEM. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS N OT JUSTIFIED. THE SAME IS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19/02/2016 AKS 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