M/s. SSP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., Indore V. THE ACIT-1(2), Indore

MA 23/IND/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5607 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SSP ENTERPRISES P. LTD., INDORE V. ACIT-1(2), INDORE / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT . . ./ PAN:AAJCS2648N / APPELLANT BY SHRI SUDHIR PADLIYA, CA / RESPONDENT BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING 19.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.05.2017 / O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THROUGH THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEE KING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 320/IND/2014 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DATED 21.11.2016. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A . NO. M.A. NO.23/IND/2017 ARISING OUT .../ I.T.A. NO.320/IND/2014 &( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 SSP ENTERPRISES/MANO.23/IND/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.320 & 278/ IND/2014/C.O. NO. 29/IND/2014/A.Y.: 06-07 PAGE 2 OF 5 320/IND/2014, THE BENCH HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER IN PA RA 12 OF THE HON'BLE BENCH ORDER DATED 21.11.2016 : IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSION IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRA PHS WHILE DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS DI SMISSED. THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN CONNECTION WITH ADDITION OF RS . 28 LACS OUT OF RS. 40 LACS AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN ABSENC E OF BANK STATEMENT OF THESE PARTIES HAS RELIED ON THE DECISI ONS OF THIS BENCH FOR GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IN I .T.A. NO. 278/IND/2014 DEALT IN THE PRESENT ORDER IN PARA 6 T O 8 OF THE ORDER AND DISMISSING THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESS EES APPEAL ACCORDINGLY. THE AR THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE F INDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL RESULTS THAT NO DECISION GIVEN BY THE BENC H IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADDITION RELATED TO RS. 28 LACS AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AS SUCH THE DECISION REGARDING GROUND NO. 1 THE ASSESSEES APPEAL REMAINED TO BE DISCUSSED WHILE DE CIDING THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 320/IND/2014 FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS REQUESTED TO RECALL THE ORDER TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN CONNECTION WITH ADDITION OF RS. 28 LACS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE SSP ENTERPRISES/MANO.23/IND/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.320 & 278/ IND/2014/C.O. NO. 29/IND/2014/A.Y.: 06-07 PAGE 3 OF 5 DEALING WITH THE GROUND RELATING TO ADDITION RESTRI CTED TO RS. 28 LACS OUT OF 40 LACS. BY CIT(A) HAS GIVEN ITS FINDIN G IN PARA 6 TO 12 IN THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2016 IN I.T.A. NO. 278/IND /2014 OF REVENUES APPEAL AS UNDER: 6. THE NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 40 L ACS WHICH WAS RESTRICTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO RS. 28 LACS . AGAINST THIS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 12 LACS THE DEPART MENT IS IN APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION IN SU PPORT OF DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 12 LACS. 7. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM 10 COMPA NIES BASED AT CALCUTTA BEING RS. 4 LACS RECEIVED FROM EA CH COMPANY BECAUSE THESE COMPANIES ARE AT SAME PLACE A ND ONLY SOME ARE HAVING ADDRESSES. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND THE COPIES OF CHEQUES I SSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ONLY THREE CHEQ UES WERE DEPOSITED FROM SHARE APPLICANTS WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THERE WERE 10 APPLICANTS. BESIDES THIS , THE CHEQUE WAS DEPOSITED ON THE SAME DAY. THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS TO PROVE THAT THER E WAS NO CASH PAYMENT. IN RESPECT OF THREE PARTIES, M/S R.K. SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, M/S RENOVISION COMMERCE P. LT D. AND AMARJYOTI VYAPAR LIMITED, NO CASH DEPOSIT WAS FOUND . IN RESPECT OF SEVEN PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BELIEVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER TRAVEL LED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED T HE ADDITION OF RS. 12 LACS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 11. AS A RESULT WHILE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OFRS .12 LAKHS OF THREE PARTIES NAMED ABOVE WHOSE BANK ACCOUNT WER E FURNISHED BY APPELLANT ARE TREATED AS GENUINE AND S UCH ADDITION OF RS. 12 LAKHS IS DELETED, THE BALANCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.28 LAKHS FROM REST OF 7 PAR TIES IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDITION OF SUCH AMOUNT IS CONFIRMED U/S 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT. AS A RESULT THI S GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SSP ENTERPRISES/MANO.23/IND/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.320 & 278/ IND/2014/C.O. NO. 29/IND/2014/A.Y.: 06-07 PAGE 4 OF 5 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDE S. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT IN CASE OF THREE PARTIES THE LEARNED CIT(A) WA S OF THE VIEW THAT THREE PARTIES, VIZ. M/S R.K. SKYLINE CONS TRUCTION LTD., M/S RENOVISION COMMECE P. LTD AND AMARJYOTI V YAPAR LTD. NO CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS VERIFIED THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THESE PARTIES AND HE HAS TREATED IT AS GENUINE AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 12 LA CS WAS DELETED. THEREFORE, OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT CALLED FOR. 9. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 10. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN ITA NO. 320/IND/2014 THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN GROUND NO. 1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN RETAINING THE ADDITION TO RS. 28 LACS OUT OF THE AD DITION OF RS. 40,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 12. IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSION IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAP H WHILE DEALING WITH THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, THIS GR OUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEES GROUND RELATING RETAINING THE ADDITION O F RS. 28 LACS OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 40 LACS U/S 68 OF THE ACT HA S BEEN CLEARLY DEALT WITH REFERENCE TO DECIDING THE REVENUES APPE AL ON SAME GROUND WHEREBY THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED A ND ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL H AS GIVEN A CLEAR CUT FINDING AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND RELATI NG TO ADDITION OF RS. 28 LACS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH WHILE DECIDING REVENUES APPEAL, AND ADDITION OF RS. 12 LACS WAS C ONFIRMED AND REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. SSP ENTERPRISES/MANO.23/IND/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.320 & 278/ IND/2014/C.O. NO. 29/IND/2014/A.Y.: 06-07 PAGE 5 OF 5 THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE IS MISTA KE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, ACCORDIN GLY THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AND DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.05 .2017 SD/- SD/- ( .. ) /(C.M. GARG) (..) /(O.P.MEENA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24 TH MAY, 2017 SB*