DCIT, Central Circle II, Chandigarh V. M/s Bharatnet Technology Ltd. , New Delhi

ITA 984/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6590 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GULSHAN RAJ
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 983 & 984/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE DCIT, VS. M/S BHARATNET TECHNOLOGY LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AABCP6785H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. GULSHAN RAJ RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE DEPA RTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] -3, GURGAON DATED 31.3.2017 . 2. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL, THESE HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FACTS ARE TAKEN FROM I TA NO. 983/CHD/2017. 3. THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED 2 CREDITS WITH RESPECT TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 22.60 LACS INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U /S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 4. NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. A NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN RETUR NED WITH THE REMARKS ASSESSEE LEFT. NO OTHER ADDRESS / CORRECT ADDRES S OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, WHEN THE GROUND O F APPEAL AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PERUSED, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE L D. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE INCOME TAX RETUR NS AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THERE UPON ALSO STOOD CONCLUDED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ACTION CARRIED ON 4.10.2012 AND NO ASSESSMENT / RE-ASSESSM ENT WAS PENDING ON THE SAID DATE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S MALA BUIL DERS PVT LTD VS. ACIT ITA NOS. 433 TO 437/CHD/2014, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ITA NO.36 OF 200 9 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ITA N O. 523 OF 2013 REPORTED IN (2015) 279 CTR 0389 (BOMBAY) AND ON THE CASE OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAW LA 234 TAXMAN 300 (DELHI) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS HAVE BEEN UNANIMOUS TO HOLD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION, WHEN THERE WAS NO PENDING ASSESSMENT WHICH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ABATED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE. WHEN LD. DR WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS MADE BY THE LD . CIT(A), THE LD. DR 3 HAS BEEN FAIR ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION AND THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS STOOD COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. HE, HOWEVER, INVIT ED OUR ATTENTION TO THE GROUND (XI) TAKEN BY THE REVENUE WHEREIN IT HAS BEE N STATED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED BY THE HON'B LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. DAYAWANTI VS. CIT IN ITA 357/201 5 & OTHERS DATED 27.10.2016. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR, SINCE THE CASE OF SMT. DAYAWANTI VS. CIT (SUP RA) HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS, ITA 306/2017 AND OTHERS DECIDED VIDE ORDE R DATED 25.5.2017. WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF S MT. DAYAWANTI VS. CIT (SUPRA), INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING TH E SEARCH ACTION, HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS. MEETA G UTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS (SUPRA), NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION, HENCE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS, THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. SINCE THE ISSUE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE OTHER APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO. 984/CHD/2017 ARE IDENTICAL, IN V IEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE, THE SAME ALSO STAND DISMISSED. 4 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY TH E REVENUE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH NOV.,2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR