Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), O/o, Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur V. M/S.Gobiz Exims Private Limited, Kanpur

ITSSA 270/LKW/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Jt. C.I.T.), Central Circle-1, Kanpur against M/s Globiz Exims Pvt. Ltd. concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal arose from the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur, which deleted an addition of Rs.1,60,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention by the Revenue was the alleged contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by the CIT(A) in relying on certain evidences to delete the addition. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the material on record, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination of the documentary evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113250 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 18 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2004
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Onus to prove
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.270/Lkw/2018 Assessment year:2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.270/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2010-11 Jt. C.I.T. (OSD), Central Circle-1, Kanpur. Vs. M/s Globiz Exims Pvt. Ltd., 402, Kalpana Plaza, Birhana Road, Kanpur. PAN:AAJCS2372M (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of learned CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur in appeal No. CIT(A)-IV/10016/DCIT-CC-I/KNP/2016- 17/649 dated 25/01/2018 against the assessment order passed by Dy.C.I.T., Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s 153A of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 30/03/2016 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal as reproduced as under: Appellant by None Respondent by Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 29/11/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/11/2022 I.T.A. No.270/Lkw/2018 Assessment year:2010-11 2 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,60,00,000/- made by the A.O. without appreciating the facts brought on record by the A.O. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in relying upon the evidences in contraventions of rule 46A while deleting the addition of Rs.1,60700,000/- made by A.O. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous deserves to be vacated and the order of the A.O. may be restored.” 3. Before us none represented the assessee. However, we are inclined to adjudicate upon the matter after hearing learned D.R. and considering the material available on record ex-parte qua the assessee. 4. Before us learned CIT, D.R. emphasized on ground No. 2 by which it is contended that learned CIT(A), while deleting the addition of Rs.1.60 crores, has relied upon evidences in contravention of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1062 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). Learned CIT, D.R. referred to the order of the Assessing Officer to submit that no bank statements and balance sheets were filed in respect of three investors from whom assessee had received the share capital including share premium. The relevant extracts from the order of the Assessing Officer are reproduced as under: “...........The assessee in its reply has submitted the confirmation in respect of company mentioned at Sl. No. 01 above but no bank statements, balance sheet have been filed. In respect of company mentioned at Sl. No. 02 above filed confirmation, balance sheet, copy of ITR but no copy of bank statement has been filed. In case of the company mentioned at Sl. No. 03 above confirmation, balance sheet, copy of ITR has been filed but copy of bank statement has not been filed. In view of above, the source of investment made by above said three companies could not be explained.” I.T.A. No.270/Lkw/2018 Assessment year:2010-11 3 He then referred to the order of learned CIT(A) and referred to the findings given by him in para 6.3 wherein it is noted that in the course of assessment proceedings assessee had filed confirmations, bank statements, balance sheet and ITR of all the parties from whom the assessee received the share application money. Therefore, the primary burden of proof by establishing the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions is established. He thus submitted that the observation made by learned CIT(A) is contradictory to the observation made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings. It was contended that for allowing the appeal and deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, reliance placed on the bank statements and balance sheets of the three subscriber companies is not in compliance with Rule 46A of the Rules and therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer so as to re-examine the issue in the appeal. 5. On going through the submissions made by learned CIT, D.R. who took us to the relevant observations of the authorities below in their respective orders. We are in agreement with the submissions of learned CIT, D.R. to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to re- examine the issue in the light of documentary evidence which the learned CIT(A) has referred to in para 6.3 while giving relief to the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and be allowed to make any further submission if the need so arises. The assessee is also directed to be diligent on attending the matter before the Assessing Officer for its effective disposal. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No.270/Lkw/2018 Assessment year:2010-11 4 6. Since the matter has been remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer in view of ground No. 2, we are not adjudicating on the merits of the case as contended by Revenue in ground No. 1. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 30/11/2022) Sd/. Sd/. (MAHAVIR SINGH) (GIRISH AGRAWAL) Vice President Accountant Member Dated:30/11/2022 *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 Assistant Registrar