M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR, JAIPUR V. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

MA 12/JPR/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2893 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Share purchase agreement
• Section: 48

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh laanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Misc. Application No. 12/JP/2022 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.57/JP/2021) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur cuke Vs. The PCIT-1 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACGCR 2862 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Deepak Birla, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 19/07/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the order passed in ITA No. 57/JP/2022 dated 05-05-2022. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has prayed that in the order dated 05-05- 2022, there are certain factual errors and mistake which are apparent from the record and requires rectification and amendment of the order dated 05-05-2022 in 2 MA 12/JP/2022 M/S. RAJENDRA AND URSUAL HOLDINGS PVT LTD. VS PCIT-1, JAIPUR the interest of justice. The submissions as mentioned by the assessee in the Misc. Application are reproduced as under:- ‘’3. That, in concluding para 16 at page 46 and 47 of abovementioned Judgment/Order dated 05.05.2022, this Hon'ble Bench has observed that "It is evident from the above information furnished before the AO when the 40 was asking the specific details about the details of the foreign remittance received the assessee on its own wisdom giving the details of outward remittance. Assessee company has not filed foreign Inward remittance certificate (FIRC) issued by the recipient's bank though for this gift. This document includes details such as but not limited to the name and account numbers of the sender and recipient, the purpose of the transfer, the exchange rate applied to the transaction etc. It is also not specified that fund was in Indian currency or it poured from the country of the person giving the gift....................... 4. That, the factual observation and finding of the Hon'ble bench that the Assessee has failed to submit and file the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) issued by the recipient's bank for the gift, is totally erroneous, mistaken and seems to have been made in inadvertence. As per the true factual situation reflected clearly from the record of the case, all the gifts to the shareholders were made by late Dr. Rajendra Kumar Joshi from his NRE Bank Account held at the erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (now State Bank of India), branch C-Scheme, Jaipur to the domestic bank accounts of the individual shareholders and therefore all the gift transactions were domestic transactions, in INR and not Foreign Inward Remittances in a foreign currency, for all the gift recipients. Therefore the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) was not at all applicable for all these gift transactions and even the Assessing officer was fully aware of this fact therefore the Assessing Officer never asked for such certificate, as the FIRC cannot be issued for the domestic INR transactions between two domestic bank accounts in India. In this regard the Copy of the Statement of the NRE Account of Late Dr Rajendra Kumar Joshi, from which the said gifts were made to the shareholders, and the Statements of the domestic bank accounts of the shareholders/recipients of the Gifts were already provided to the Assessing Officer and the same are available on the record. 3 MA 12/JP/2022 M/S. RAJENDRA AND URSUAL HOLDINGS PVT LTD. VS PCIT-1, JAIPUR Therefore the erroneous factual observation of the Hon'ble Bench regarding failure of the Assessee to submit FIRC, and the implications, corollaries and adverse inferences drawn out of this erroneous observation needs to be rectified and amended in the interest of justice. 5. That, further in the para 16 at page 46 and 47 of abovementioned Judgment/Order dated 05.05.2022, this Hon'ble Bench also observed that ‘’....Not only that when the AO has asked for the source of the capital received assessee company intelligently submitted that the source is from the own funds realising that mistake, they have given an undated letter where in the details of cheque and its gift source is declared there is no reference in the assessment order or evidence given by the assessee that whether that letter was submitted by an email or not?. The assessing officer has not recorded how many submissions that the assessee has submitted whether the same were filed physically or through an email as it is without any acknowledgment or date of submission. The assessing officer is to carry out all necessary enquiries and investigation to establish the correctness of the documents filed. Here they knowingly or unknowingly failed to submit the proof that the details were placed on record and on which date When there is no proof of having been submitted the details or there is no discussion in the assessment order it is to be believed that the same was not made available before the AO at the time of passing the order, as there is no discussion in the assessment order for the substantial increase in share capital. Thus, the benefit of the doubt goes in the favour of the revenue that whether these details were filed and having been filed analysed by the AO or not?. In the light of these facts, how can the assessment order be not prejudicially to the interest of the revenue. The judicial case laws relied upon by the assessee before the amendment in the law and are totally on different fact where in those cases assessee has filed all most all details such ITR, PAN, Bank Statement details of the source of investment made (specifying the loan, sale of assets or saving), whereas in this case the assessee even though called upon to file these details have not furnished the complete details that the investment is made out of the gifts received and stated that from own fund through banking channel here also miserably failed to give correct and necessary information required by the assessing officer. Merely submitting the bank statement, share allotment details and share certificate will not prove the credit made in the books of account of the assessee company. It is the duty of the assessee company to place on record the details specially asked for 4 MA 12/JP/2022 M/S. RAJENDRA AND URSUAL HOLDINGS PVT LTD. VS PCIT-1, JAIPUR and it is observed that the assessee is not coming with the correct facts and giving the details required by the assessing officer." This observation and the facts do not relate to the Assessee herein and therefore have wrongly been attributed to the Assessee due to the disposal of this Appeal and the Appeal of another Assessee Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd through the single common judgment dated 05.05.2022. The aforementioned factual observation of the Hon'ble Bench regarding the lack of evidence of submission of the undated letter by the Assessee to the Assessing Officer is also erroneous and mistaken as this Letter was duly submitted by the Assessee through uploading the same on 20.12.2018 on the Income Tax Web Portal through the Assessee's account. This uploading of the Letter is clearly proved by the Screenshot of the Income Tax Web Portal which is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-1. Therefore this undated Letter was very much submitted before the Assessing officer and was available to him at the time of the Assessment. Therefore the erroneous factual observation of the Hon'ble Bench regarding uncertainty of submission of the undated Letter available on the record, and the implications, corollaries and adverse inferences drawn out of this erroneous observation needs to be rectified and amended in the interest of justice. 6. That, further in para 17 at page 47 and 48 of abovementioned Judgment/Order dated 05.05.2022, this Hon'ble Bench has observed that - "We find that a similar issue for assessment year 2015-16 was before the Coordinate Bench. It is for best reason known to the assessee that they have not pointed out these very important and basic facts before us at the time of arguments in this case for A. Y. 2016-17, but the records says that the Co ordinate Bench has already upheld the decision of PCIT us 263 for A.Y 2015-16 on identical facts. It is also noted that learned brother (Judicial Member) is one of the judicial officer of this court was one of the signatory of that judgement of the co-ordinate bench and the assessee failed to draw our attention of this very important fact of information for the reasons best known to the assessee." The aforementioned observation is factually erroneous as the facts of the previous Appeal of the Assessee filed against the PCIT Order for the AY 2015 2016, was on totally different facts and figures. The present Appeal of the Assessee for the AY 216-2017 has totally different facts and figures 5 MA 12/JP/2022 M/S. RAJENDRA AND URSUAL HOLDINGS PVT LTD. VS PCIT-1, JAIPUR and is in no Iway connected or interrelated to the previously disposed Appeal to which the Hon'ble Bench is referring in its observation. Moreover there is no legal obligation or mandate on the part of the Assessee to mention each and every previous unconnected litigation or case he might have pursued in the past before the Hon'ble Tribunal, more so if the present Appeal and dispute is totally different and new. Moreover, without prejudice to the foregoing the present matter and the Assessment proceedings for the AY 2016-17 are factually different and totally unrelated to the past Appeal and the Assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 and have no bearings on the merits of the present matter. Therefore the aforementioned erroneous observation and the implications, corollaries and adverse inferences drawn out of this erroneous observation needs to be rectified and amended in the interest of justice.’’ 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the ITAT,Jaipur Bench and submitted that there is no error in the order of ITAT except the assessee is making efforts to get reviewed the ITAT order through the Misc. Application. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench has also considered the points raised by the assessee through Misc. Application meticulously. The points raised by the assessee are mere observation on the submissions made by the assessee and at the same time failed to demonstrate as to why and as to how there exists a mistake apparent on record. Based on that, we feel that there is no chance to make any amelioration / rectification in the findings given by the Bench as the error, if any, raised by the assessee in its Misc. Application does not affect the decision of the Bench and is 6 MA 12/JP/2022 M/S. RAJENDRA AND URSUAL HOLDINGS PVT LTD. VS PCIT-1, JAIPUR not a mistake apparent on record. The Bench also finds that the order passed by it is a reasoned and a speaking order which does not require any consideration under the ambit of mistake apparent from record. Hence, the Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 3.0 In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 07 -09-2022 Sd/- Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 07 /09/2022 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- M/s. Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- PCIT,-1, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 12/JP/2021) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar