Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Daksh Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New ... on 26 April, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1420/Del/2013
Assessment Year : 2006-07
DCIT, Vs. Daksh Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.,
Central Circle-12, 12, Ring Road,
Room No.330, Lajpat Nagar-IV,
ARA Centre, New Delhi.
Jhandewalan Extn.,
New Delhi. PAN: AABCD9085C
ITA No.4734/Del/2011
Assessment Year : 2006-07
CO No.51/Del/2014
(ITA No.1420/Del/2013
Assessment Year : 2006-07
Daksh Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT,
12, Ring Road, Central Circle-12,
Lajpat Nagar-IV, Room No.330,
New Delhi. ARA Centre,
Jhandewalan Extn.,
PAN: AABCD9085C New Delhi.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA Nos.1420/Del/2013 & 4734/Del/2011
CO No.51/Del/2014
Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate
Department By : Ms Rachna Singh, CIT, DR
Date of Hearing : 25.04.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2018
ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP:
One appeal by the assessee and another by the Revenue from different proceedings and one Cross Objection by the assessee relate to assessment year 2006-07. Since common issue is raised in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
2. Before proceeding with the matter, it is relevant to mention that the appeal of the assessee is a recalled matter inasmuch as the earlier order passed by the Bench was subsequently recalled.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs.8,536/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that the assessee had shown to have received an unsecured loan of Rs.2 crore from M/s Vipul Infrastructure Developer Ltd. The Assessing Officer called upon the 2 ITA Nos.1420/Del/2013 & 4734/Del/2011 CO No.51/Del/2014 assessee to furnish copy of the Income-tax return, Balance sheet, Audit report, Confirmation and Bank statement of the lender, namely, M/s Vipul Infrastructure Developer Ltd. The assessee filed confirmation from Vipul Ltd. along with a copy of bank account. In the absence of any further details, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2 crore. The assessee remained unrepresented before the ld. CIT(A), as a result of which its appeal came to be dismissed. The assessee is aggrieved against such confirmation of addition.
4. In the other appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.2.00 crore. The factual matrix of the other appeal is that after the conclusion of the original assessment, as discussed supra, search and seizure operations were carried out u/s 132 in Raj Darbar group of cases on 31.07.2008. In such search operation, certain documents belonging to the assessee company were found. Notice u/s 153C was issued. The Assessing Officer recorded a summary of earlier proceedings u/s 143(3) in his fresh order passed u/s 153C and, again, repeated the addition of Rs.2 crore. The ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. He got convinced with the assessee's 3 ITA Nos.1420/Del/2013 & 4734/Del/2011 CO No.51/Del/2014 submissions and deleted the addition vide his order dated 24.12.2012. The Revenue has come up in appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A).
5. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee declared a loan of Rs.2 crore from M/s Vipul Infrastructure Developer Ltd. On being called upon to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction, the assessee filed confirmation from M/s Vipul Ltd. It was so because the name of the lender company got changed from M/s Vipul Infrastructure Developer Ltd to Vipul Ltd. Apart from that, the assessee did not furnish other details of the lender, such as, Annual accounts along with audit report etc., as called for by the Assessing Officer. It is clear from the impugned order that the name of the lender company got changed from Vipul Infrastructure Developer Ltd. to Vipul Ltd. Filing of confirmation by Vipul Ltd., thus, establishes the identity of the creditor. On a specific query from the Bench, the ld. AR submitted that the loan taken in the Financial year 2005-06 was repaid some time in 2011. No commercial reasons could be put forth by him for receipt of such a loan from an unrelated party. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition simply on the premise that the Assessing Officer ought to have conducted further 4 ITA Nos.1420/Del/2013 & 4734/Del/2011 CO No.51/Del/2014 enquiries, which he failed to do. It is found that the Assessing Officer did enquire from the assessee about the aspects of genuineness of the transaction and credit worthiness of the lender. The assessee could not file the Annual accounts etc. of the lender company, showing reflection of loan given to the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the lender is a listed company whose genuineness cannot be disputed. In our considered opinion, the mere fact that the lender is a listed company does not absolve the assessee from proving all the ingredients in respect of the transaction of loan taken by it. Since the necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the creditor were not readily available with the assessee, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In such fresh proceedings, the assessee will be under obligation to satisfy the Assessing Officer on all the necessary ingredients of section 68 in this case.
6. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was not pressed. 5 ITA Nos.1420/Del/2013 & 4734/Del/2011 CO No.51/Del/2014
7. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the C.O. is dismissed as not pressed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 26.04.2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
[K. NARASIMHA CHARY] [R.S. SYAL]
JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Dated, 26th April, 2018.
dk
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT
AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.
6