Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur
Mesers Shree Banke Bihari Infracon ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur on 18 March, 2024
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण यायपीठ रायपुर म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.95/RPR/2020
CO No.08/RPR/2023
नधारण वष / Assessment Years : 2013-14
The Income Tax Officer-4(1),
Raipur (C.G.)
.......अपीलाथ / Appellant
बनाम / V/s.
M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Private Limited
Shristi Garden, Panchpedi Naka,
Ring Road, Raipur, C.G.
PAN : AAMCS3718C
...... यथ / Respondent
Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA
Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. -DR
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 02.01.2024
घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement : 18.03.2024
2
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.
ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
आदे श / ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:
The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur dated 13.08.2020, which in turn arises from the orders passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') dated 30.03.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14. Also, the assessee is before us as a cross-objector for the aforementioned year. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal (revised) before us:
"1. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act?"
2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- by ignoring the facts as brought on record by the AO that the assessee company failed to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor company as per the parameters of the legal provisions u/s 68 of the Act?"
3. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, thereby not considering and not distinguishing the findings of the AO which is well supported by the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pavan kumar M Sanghvi Vs ITO (2018) 404 ITR 601 (Guj), wherein it is mentioned that 'it is also settled legal position that the onus of the assessee, of explaining nature and source of credit, does not get discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters, or demonstrating that the transactions are done through the banking channels or even by filing the income tax assessment particulars'? "
4. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition which is contrary to the ratio of the decisions in CIT Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd 1994 2008 ITR 465, wherein it was held that it is for the to prove the identity of the creditors, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and mere furnishing of particulars is not enough?"
3
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
5. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition which is contrary to the ratio of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC), CIT Vs M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC), which clearly states that where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of a credit entry in his books, and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assessee, it is not necessary for the Department to locate its exact source?"
6. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, thereby without considering and distinguishing the ratio of the judgment of the cases such as Rameshwar Prasad Bagla 68 ITR 653(Allahabad) & Homi vs CIT 41 ITR 135, 142 by (Supreme Court) wherein it is stated that the totality of C-:_--istances must be considered in a case of circumstantial evidence & the totality of the has to be taken into consideration and the combined effect of all those determinative of the question as to whether or not a particular act is proved ?'
7. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO and giving a decision in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, thereby giving a finding against the ratio of the settled law of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain, Nagpur (I.T.A. No. 18/2017 dated, 10.04.2017, Bombay High Court, Nagpur- Bench) wherein it is stated that since there is no economic or financial justification for the investment in the shares, the transaction has all the ingredients of attracting the rigors of Section 68 of the IT Act ?"
8. " Whether on points of law and on points of facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/ s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- made by the AO in the absence of satisfaction of parameters prescribed u/s 68 of the Act?"
9. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified by giving a finding which is contrary to the evidence on record, as the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the identity, creditworthiness of the entities investing in the share capital and share premiums of the assessee company as genuine, a finding which is factually incorrect, thereby rendering the decision, which is perverse?"
10. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-II vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 286(Delhi) held that "though it is obligation of assessing officer to conduct proper scrutiny of material, in even of assessing officer failing to discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct proper inquiry shifts to commissioner (Appeals) and they cannot simply delete addition made by assessing officer on ground of lack of inquiry." 4
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
11. "Whether on points of law and facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving a decision in favour of the assessee and against the revenue though there is no nexus between the conclusion of fact and primary fact upon which without conclusion is based?"
12. "The order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts".
13. "Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing".
2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of real estate and building work had e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2013-14 on 21.12.2013, declaring an income of Rs.2,29,982/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act.
3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee company had claimed to have received share capital/premium of Rs. 2.05 crore from M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., viz. (i) Share capital:
Rs.18,20,340/- and (ii) Share premium: Rs.1,86,79,570/-. The A.O to verify the authenticity of the assessee's claim of having received the aforesaid amount as share capital/premium issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act (through speed post) to the aforementioned share applicant/subscriber company, which, however, remained un- complied with. Accordingly, the A.O. vide notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 17.03.2015 brought the aforesaid fact of non-compliance to the knowledge of the assessee company and directed it to produce before him the director of the share applicant/subscriber company for necessary examination. However, the aforesaid notice u/s. 142(1) dated 17.03.2016 was returned unserved by the postal authority with the remark "incomplete address". The A.O., observing, that the assessee 5 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
company had adopted an evasive approach deputed his Inspector to effect service of notice on the assessee company. It was, however, reported by the Inspector that the assessee company had refused to receive notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 17.03.2015. The A.O. sought for a direction from the Jt. CIT, Range-4, Raipur, and under his direction issued a commission u/s. 131(1)(d) of the Act. The A.O. directed his Inspector to carry out a spot verification about the existence of the share applicants/subscriber company. The Inspector vide his report dated 23.03.2016 informed the A.O. that the aforesaid share applicant/subscriber company was neither available at the address that was provided to him nor any board evidencing the availability of the said company was found at the said address.
4. Also, the Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai vide his aforesaid report dated 2303.2016 informed the A.O. that the persons putting up near the address of the investor company had expressed their unawareness about the availability of the latter at the said address. The A.O, referring to the aforesaid facts held a firm conviction that the assessee company had failed to discharge the onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of its claim of having received share capital/premium of Rs.2.05 crore from the aforementioned share applicant/subscriber company viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. The A.O., observed, that the identity of the aforesaid share applicant/subscriber company was not established, and also, the return of income filed by the latter revealed nil income and was not accompanied by any financial statement. Apart from that, the A.O. 6 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 observed that except for the aforesaid transaction of payment made towards share capital/premium, the bank account of the share subscriber/applicant company revealed no other transaction. Accordingly, the A.O. being of the view that the assessee company in the garb of share capital/premium had laundered its unaccounted money, thus, made an addition of the entire amount of Rs.2.05 crore (approx.) u/s. 68 of the Act.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who after deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the assessee found favor with the same by observing as under:
"2.3 I have gone through the submission of the appellant and also perused the assessment order. As per the above facts, the assessee has during the year received share application money of Rs 2.05 cr from a company M/s Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt Ltd of KoIkata. Inquiry was made on the back of the assessee and results of inquiry were not confronted to the assessee before making addition. ITI made inquiry at wrong address of Synagogue Street Kolkata instead of correct address of Mango Lane, Kolkata. Notice dated 8.3.2016 was issued to the assessee was duly received and as per the appellant, the said notice was replied but there is no mention of this notice in the assessment order. Letter u/s 142(1) dated 8.3.2016 was sent. As per assessee the said notice was not received. Meanwhile the Ld. ARs were attending hearing before the Ld AO and AO could have very well informed the result of the inquiry across the table to the AR. AO also could have served the notice on the AR across the table during the hearing, particularly when it was not served by postal authorities. Assessee 's address at Pachpedi naka Raipur is still the same. Notice of hearings were duly served at this address and in response to which AR was regularly attending the hearings before the AO. Then there is no reason that this particular letter u/s. 142(1) could not be served by the Ld. AO. Earlier the address of M/s Modakpriya was Synagogue Street Kolkata. Subsequently the address was changed. Vide reply of assessee dated NIL received by the AO on 4.12.2015 assessee has replied at para number 18 that " details of share subscribers are enclosed at Annexure 11." At Annexure 11 following, information was furnished-
Sr. Name of Share holder Address 7 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
1. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt Ltd 3 Mango Lane, 4th Floor, Kolkata (WB)- 700001 Number of shares 18203.4 Total amount 2,04,99,910/-
However the AO sent notice u/s 133(6) to old address and from this address the notice was returned back. All the documents in respect of M/s Modakpriya such as ITR, audited balance sheet, bank account statement, ROC certificate were furnished. The. AO has made addition due drawing adverse inference that the subscriber company did not exist at the address whereas the notice was sent to wrong address. As per ROC the address of the company was Mango Lane at which the company duly existed. As per audited balance sheet of Modak it has assets and liabilities of Rs 11.16 cr and amount of share capital advanced to the assessee is Rs 2.05 cr. Company has share capital of Rs 1.12 cr and Reserves & Surplus of Rs 10.0 cr. Ap has furnished details of source of source also. The capital of Modak has come from sale of investments and list of buyers of investment was furnished. Modakpriya has. given Rs. 39,99,970/- to another company Shree Rupandham Steel Pvt Ltd Raipur. In case of M/s Rupandham Steel Pvt Ltd in the Assessment Order dated 31.12.2019 for AY 2017-18 the capital has been accepted treating the share capital from M/s Modakpriya as genuine.
As per the these facts, the addition has been made because as per the AO, the existence of the investor company could not be established. However such inference was drawn by the Ld. AO on the basis of the inquiry at the incorrect address. No adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee on the basis of these facts. In any case, I find that no adverse facts have been brought on record by causing any inquiry by the AO. Assessee has furnished all the documents such as ROC certificate with the address of the investor company, share on, bank statement, ITR of the investor. The identity is established by PAN and ROC certificate. Once the assessee has discharged its onus, the onus shifts on the AO to make enquires/investigation to establish that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investor has not been established. M/s Modakpriya is duly registered with ROC and having registered office at 3 Mango Lane Kolkata and it possess the registration numbers allotted by the ROC. This proves the existence of the company. As per bank statements payments have received by the assessee from investor through banking channel. Therefore, genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted. Without finding any fault in the documents furnished by the appellant, no adverse finding can be made by the AO. Where the assessee has furnished details of creditors and their confirmation and the AO did not make any inquiry and no effort was made to pursue so called creditors, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable [ CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd 159 ITR 78 SC]. On similar lines honourable Gauhati HC in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT 264 ITR 254 held that where the assessee has furnished confirmation and other records of creditors. and established identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, he has discharged his burden and no addition can be made. In the present case the Ld AO made inquiry at incorrect address. Thus 8 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd, reported in 216 CTR 195 and the jurisdictional High Court viz. Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT Vs Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd reported in 319 ITR 393 have dealt similar instances. As per the decision in M/s Lovely Exports (supra) if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bops shareholders, whose names are given to. the AO, then the Department is. free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company.
In the case of ACIT vs Venkateshwar Ispat Pvt Ltd 319 ITR 393 Chhattisgarh 2010, 41 DTR 350 the deletion of addition by [TAT was justified. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-company filed its return for the assessment year 1989-90. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, added Rs.13,36,000 towards holdings of the shareholders, whose confirmation could not be adduced. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee sought permission for adducing additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income-tax 2, which was accepted and appeal of the assessee was allowed on the basis of additional evidence adduced by the assessee as also keeping in view of the fact that for subsequent assessment year, the share holders investment was confirmed during the assessment proceedings. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed by the ITAT. Before the honorable HC, it was submitted on behalf of the department that apart from the reasons as4,igned by the respondent, the Tribunal, wherein it has been held that the investment has been verified on the basis of the additional evidence adduced by the assessee, in view of the latest judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR (St.) 5 ; [2008] 216 ITR (St.) 195, investment by the alleged bogus shareholders in a company cannot be regarded as the undisclosed income of the assessee-company, though individual investors can be proceeded against by the Department. The Court has deliberated that in the matter of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR (St.) 5, the question before the hon'ble Supreme Court was--whether the amount of share money can be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68, of the Act Answering the above question, the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee-company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee-company. It was held that in view of the binding judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court as also the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which have been subsequently confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, there is no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arising for adjudication of this appeal. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed.
In the present case I find that the investments made by the share applicant is duly reflected in the audited financial statement of the investor. It 9 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
is a settled principle of law that reason for suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a basis for holding adversity against appellant. In my considered opinion, the ratio of the foresaid judgments are binding in nature on all the revenue authorities and courts etc. and further, the judgment of the jurisdictional. High Court has been rendered on identical facts. Hence, it is impermissible to deviate from the ratio laid down therein and against the law of judicial precedents.
Recently vide order dated 18.1.2018 the jurisdiction ITAT Raipur has on the basis of similar facts in the case of ITA Nos.225 to 231/RPR/2014 DCIT, Central Circle Raipur vs. R.R.Energy Ltd has ruled in assessee's favour. Following all these decisions, in view of the above facts, the addition of Aare capital is hereby deleted.
Therefore the addition of loan made by the AO as assessee's income is hereby deleted.
3.0 Appeal is allowed."
6. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us.
7. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions.
8. Before proceeding any further, it would be relevant to point out that the case of the assessee company for the assessment year 2013-14 would be governed by the provisions of post-amended Section 68 of the Act, which reads as under:
"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year :10
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless--
(a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and
(b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory:
Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10."
As per Section 68 of the Act (post-amended), there is a double facet onus which is required to be discharged by an assessee company that claims to be in receipt of amount towards share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, viz. (i) to come forth with an explanation about the "nature" and "source" of the sum credited in its books of account; and (ii) to place on record an explanation of the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of the assessee company about the "nature" and "source" of such sum so credited. Accordingly, as per the "1st proviso" to Section 68 of the Act as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, an additional obligation is cast upon the assessee company to place on record the explanation of the share applicant/subscriber regarding the "nature" and "source" of the sum so credited against its name in the books of the assessee company.11
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
9. We shall now in the backdrop of the aforesaid mandate of law look into the aspect as to whether or not the dual set of conditions contemplated u/s. 68 of the Act had been satisfied by the assessee company.
10. As is discernible from the assessment order, the A.O. to verify the authenticity of the assessee's claim of having received share application money from the aforementioned investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, had issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, dated 08.02.2016 (through speed post) to the said investor company. As observed by the A.O., though the aforesaid notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was duly served upon the aforesaid investor company but it had failed to comply with the same and furnish the requisite details as were therein called for. Considering the aforesaid fact, the A.O., vide notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 08.03.2016 is stated to have brought to the notice of the assessee company the non-compliance of the aforesaid investor company and had directed it to produce the director of the aforementioned investor company for necessary examination before him. However, as observed by the A.O., the aforesaid notice u/s. 142(1) dated 08.03.2016 could not be served upon the assessee company and was returned by the postal department with the remark "incomplete address". Because all the earlier correspondence at the aforesaid address with the assessee company was duly served and complied with, the A.O held a conviction that the assessee company had intentionally evaded the service of the aforesaid notice to avoid producing the investor company for necessary examination before him. 12
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 Accordingly, the A.O. deputed an Income Tax Inspector on 16.03.2016 to effect service of the aforementioned notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on the assessee company, but the Inspector is stated to have reported that the assessee company had refused to receive the said notice. Backed by the aforesaid facts, the A.O observed that the assessee company had failed to discharge the primary onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of its claim of having received genuine share application money of Rs.2.05 crore from the aforementioned investor company.
11. As can be gathered from the assessment order, the A.O. had as per the direction of the Addl. CIT, Range-4, Raipur issued a commission u/s. 131(1)(d) of the Act, and had directed his Inspector to carry out a spot verification about the existence of the share applicant/subscriber company at the available address. As per the report of the Income Tax Inspector dated 23.03.2016, the A.O was, inter alia, informed that as per the spot verification carried out and details collated from persons putting up in the immediate vicinity, neither the aforesaid share applicant/subscriber company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata was found available at the said address nor there was any board of the said company available at the said address. Also, it was informed by the Inspector that the persons available in the same building had expressed their unawareness about the investor company.
12. The A.O. based on the spot verification carried out by the Inspector, concluded that the share applicant/subscriber company had no existence. After 13 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 drawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd., Income Tax Appeal Nos. 514 of 2007, 539 of 2008, 2093 to 2095 of 2010 dated 31.01.2011, the A.O concluded that as the assessee company had failed to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant/subscriber company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, and also, the genuineness of the transaction of having received share application money of Rs.2.05 crore from it, thus, the amount so credited in its books of account was an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
13. The A.O. referring to the Income tax returns, balance sheet, and Profit & Loss account of the share applicant/subscriber company observed that it had disclosed its income at Rs. Nil during the year under consideration. It was also observed by him that the investor company had no revenue during the year under consideration. Referring to the bank account of the share applicant/subscriber company, the A.O. observed that except for the investment made by the share applicant company with the assessee company, there was no other transaction. Considering the aforesaid facts, the A.O. concluded that the share applicant/subscriber company was a paper company that had no existence and credibility.
14. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) took strong note of the fact that the verification carried out by the A.O. about the existence of the share applicant/subscriber company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata was carried out at the back of the assessee company and findings were never confronted to it. The 14 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 CIT(Appeals) had also observed that while the correct address of the investor company was "Mango Lane, Kolkata", the report filed by the Income Tax Inspector was, in turn, based on the inquiry carried out at the wrong address, i.e. "Synagogue Street, Kolkata". Referring to the notice issued u/s. 142(1), dated 08.03.2016 issued by the A.O to the assessee company which as stated in the assessment order was returned by the postal authority, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the said observation of the A.O was incorrect as the said notice was not received by the assessee company. The CIT(Appeals) was further of the view that now when the assessee's counsel was regularly appearing before the A.O., then, in all fairness, he ought to have brought the fact as regards returning of the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 08.03.2016 to the notice of the assessee company so that necessary compliance could have been affected. Referring to the observation of the A.O. that the assessee company had refused to receive notice u/s. 142(1) dated 08.03.2016, thus, it could safely be inferred that the same was purposively done to evade production of the share applicant/subscriber company, the CIT(Appeals) observed that as the assessee's address at "Pachpedi Naka, Raipur" remained the same and all earlier correspondence by the A.O were duly served and complied with, therefore, it was incomprehensible that the notice u/s. 142(1) dated 08.03.2016 could not be served at the same address. As regards the report of the Income Tax Inspector about the unavailability of the share applicant/subscriber company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata at its address, i.e. 8th Floor, Room 15 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 No.814, 4 Synagogue Street, Kolkata, West Bengal-700 001, the CIT(Appeals) observed that as earlier intimated by the assessee while furnishing the details of the share applicant/subscriber as "Annexure-11, Para-18" of his reply dated Nil (filed with the A.O on 04.12.2015) the address of the investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata was changed from "Synagogue Street, Kolkata (old address)" to "Mango Lane, 4th Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700 001". Considering the aforesaid facts, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the A.O. despite being well aware of the change of address of the share applicant/subscriber company had chosen to look for its availability at its old address. It was, thus, observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the availability of the investor company could not be gathered by the A.O for the reason that the necessary inquiries were carried out at an incorrect address, i.e., the old address of the assessee company.
15. The CIT(Appeals) further observed that the assessee company by placing on record the audited balance sheet, bank account statement, copy of income tax return, Registrar of Company (ROC) certificate of the share applicant/subscriber company had discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of its claim of having received share capital/premium from the investor company. Also, it was observed by him that the share applicant/subscriber company had share capital/reserves and a surplus of Rs.11.12 crore from where the investment towards share application money was made with the assessee company. Apart from that, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee company had also 16 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 placed on record source of source of the investment made by the share applicant/subscriber company. It was observed by him that the investment of Rs. 2.05 crore made by the share applicant/subscriber company with the assessee company was sourced from the sale of its investments, and complete details of the same were filed with the A.O. Apart from that, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the share applicant/subscriber company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata had also invested Rs.39.99 lacs (approx.) with another company, i.e. M/s. Rupandham Steel Pvt. Ltd. during A.Y.2017-18, which was accepted by the A.O while framing assessment u/s. 143(3) dated 31.12.2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 of the aforementioned company.
16. Based on his aforesaid deliberations, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards the existence of the investor company could not be sustained for the reason that the same was based on an inquiry carried out by the department at an incorrect address. Also, the CIT(Appeals) observed that as the assessee company had placed on record all the supporting documentary evidence, viz. copy of the share application forms, bank statement, copies of the return of income, ROC certificate, audited financial statements of the investor company, therefore, the onus that cast upon it as regards proving the identity and creditworthiness of the said share applicant/subscriber company as well as genuineness of the transaction of having received share application money from the said investor company stood discharged. The CIT(Appeals), further observed 17 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 that now that the assessee company had placed on record confirmation of the investor company, which had not been dislodged by the A.O., therefore, no adverse inferences could be drawn as regards the authenticity of the transaction under consideration. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) after relying upon a host of judicial pronouncements concluded that the recharacterizing of the share application money received by the assessee company as an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act by the A.O., merely on suspicion, could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down.
17. We have thoughtfully considered the orders of the lower authorities in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties. We shall first deal with the observation of the A.O. about the unavailability of the share applicant/subscriber company at its address, viz.
"Synagogue Street, Kolkata". The genesis of the controversy hinges around the report filed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, which was based on a spot verification carried out by the Inspector attached with ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur. As per the aforesaid report, the A.O. was informed that on a spot verification at the address of the aforementioned investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., 8th Floor, Room No.814, 4 Synagogue Street, Kolkata, West Bengal-700 001, neither the said investor company was found available nor any board pointing out to its availability at the said address was found. As observed by the CIT(Appeals), and rightly so, now when the aforesaid investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya 18 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. had shifted from its old address: " Synagogue Street, Kolkata"
to its new address: "3, Mango Lane, 4th Floor, Kolkata(WB)-700 001", we are unable to fathom as to on what basis its existence and availability was being looked into at the aforesaid old address. At this stage, we may herein observe that the A.O himself on Page 3 of his order had referred to the new address of the share applicant/subscriber company, viz. "3, Mango Lane, 4th Floor, Kolkata (WB)-700 001". Apart from that, the ROC record of the assessee company also revealed its new address, viz. "3, Mango Lane, 4th Floor, Kolkata (WB)-700 001". Based on the fact that the A.O. despite being well aware that the share applicant/subscriber company had shifted to its new address, viz. "3, Mango Lane, 4th Floor, Kolkata (WB)-700 001" was looking for its existence and availability at its old address, we are unable to approve the adverse inferences so drawn by the A.O.
18. Also, the fact that the investment of Rs.39.99 lacs ( approx.) made by the aforesaid share applicant company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. with M/s. Rupandham Steel Pvt. Ltd. during A.Y.2017-18, which, thereafter, had been accepted by the department vide its order u/s. 143(3) dated 31.12.2019 while framing the assessment for A.Y 2017-18 of the aforementioned company, viz. M/s. Rupandham Steel Pvt. Ltd. dispels all doubts about the existence of the aforesaid share applicant/subscriber company. Also, the fact that the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act that was issued by the A.O to the aforementioned share applicant/subscriber company at its new address, i.e. "3, Mango Lane, 4th Floor, Kolkata (WB)-700 001" 19
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
further establishes the identity of the investor company. We are unable to fathom that on one hand, the A.O. had issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act at the new address of the investor company but strangely, it had carried out necessary verifications at its old address, viz. " Synagogue Streel, Kolkata." As the A.O. had drawn adverse inferences about the existence of the share applicant/ subscriber company based on inquiries carried out at a wrong address, therefore, as observed by the CIT(Appeals), and rightly so, the same cannot not be sustained.
19. As regards the observation of the A.O that notice u/s.133(6) dated 08.02.2016 was though duly served upon the share applicant/subscriber company but the same was not complied with, we are of the view that on the said standalone basis no adverse inferences could have been drawn in the hands of the assessee company. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries P. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136(Bom). The Hon'ble High Court in its aforesaid order had observed that even in a case where the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act could not be served upon the share applicant/subscriber company, no adverse inference on the said count alone could have been drawn as the assessee company had placed on record supporting documentary evidence, i.e. PAN of the creditors, confirmations, bank statements, share application forms, allotment letters, financial statements of the investor which revealed that they had sufficient funds in their account for investing with the assessee company.
20
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
20. We shall now look into the aspect as to whether or not the assessee company had duly discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant/subscriber company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise P. Ltd., and the genuineness of the transaction of receipt of share application money from the aforementioned investor company.
21. At the threshold, we may herein observe that the assessee company in discharge of the primary onus that was cast upon it had placed on record with the A.O supporting documentary evidence substantiating the authenticity of its claim of having received share application money from the share applicant/subscriber company, viz. confirmation of the share applicant/subscriber company, bank statement, copies of the return of income, financial statements of the investor company, copy of share application forms, copy of PAN, copy of memorandum and articles of association, copy of board resolution and return of allotment in Form No.2. On a perusal of the confirmation of the aforesaid share applicant/subscriber company, Page 38 of APB, we find that the investor company had not merely confirmed the transaction of having invested Rs.2.05 crore towards share application money with the assessee company but had categorically furnished the complete source from where the said investment was so made. For the sake of clarity, the relevant contents of the same is culled out as under:
21
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
We are assessed the Income Tax and Filing Income Tax regularly. The amount is shown in our balance sheet, Our PAN no. is AAECM4128L.
The Investment made out of fund received against the sale of old investments to M/s Fantasy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 40/4 Banerjee Para Road , Kolkata-700041 PAN-AABCF5164A vide cheque no./RTGS dated 18/01/2013 for Rs.20,00,000/-, cheque no./RTGS dated 22/01/2013 for Rs.20,00,000/-, cheque no./RTGS dated 29/01/2013 for Rs.15,00,000/- &. cheque no. / RTGS dated 05/02/2013 for Rs. 20,00,000/- a copy of bank statement enclosed. & Cosmos Dealcom Pvt Ltd. , 40/4 Banerjee Para Road, Kolkata-700041 PAN AADCC9618G vide cheque no. /RTGS dated 21/12/2012 for Rs. 20,00,000/-, & cheque no./ RTGS dated 08/01/2013 for Rs.20,00,000/-, from M/s Jolly Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., 65, canning street Kolkata-700001 PAN no. AACCJ7123Q vide cheque no./RTGS dated 18/04/2012 for 1(s.25,00,000/- & from M/s Strongwell Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 255, Canal Street Kolkata- 700048 PAN no. AAOCS2834F1 for Rs.25,00,000/- vide RTGS dated 11/04/2012 & from Jolly Sales Pvt. Ltd. 3A Mangoe lane, K.olkata-700001 Pan no.AACCJ3463D for Rs.20,00,000/- vide cheque no. RTGS dated 01/01/2013 & Rs.20,00,000/- vide cheque no. RTGS dated 11/01/2013. a copy of bank statement enclosed.
The above statement is true to the best of our knowledge and belief."
At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that there is no word of whisper by the A.O. as to why the aforesaid confirmation of the investor company was not to be accepted. We are unable to comprehend that now when the investor company had provided the complete details about the source of source of the investment made with the assessee company, then, on what basis the A.O without dislodging 22 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
or disproving the correctness of the said explanation of the assessee company could have proceeded with and summarily drawn adverse inferences as regards the genuineness of the transaction under consideration.
22. Also, on a perusal of the bank account of the investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise P. Ltd., Page 39-42 of APB, we find that the amount remitted to the assessee company as an investment towards share application money by the said investor company is not preceded by any cash deposits in the said bank account but is sourced from bank transfers made through RTGS. To dispel all doubts about the amount received in the bank account of the investor company, which was utilized for investing share application money with the assessee company, the latter had in the course of the assessment proceedings filed with the A.O the confirmations of the companies to whom the investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise P. Ltd. had sold its investments during the year under consideration, viz. (i) Cosmos Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Jolly Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) M/s. Strongwell Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., (iv) M/s. Fantasy Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Page 59 to 63 of APB.
23. Based on the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the assessee company had discharged the double facet onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of its claim of having received genuine share application money from the aforementioned investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise P. Ltd., viz. (i). by substantiating based on documentary evidence the "nature" and "source" 23
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 of the amount so credited in its books of account, i.e. receipt of the share application money from the aforementioned investor company; and (ii). by coming forth with a duly substantiated explanation about the "nature" and "source" of the sum so credited in the name of the investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise P. Ltd. as per the mandate of the "1st proviso" to Section 68 of the Act. However, we find that the A.O had not uttered a word about the aforesaid documentary evidence which was filed by the assessee company in discharge of the primary onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of its claim of having received genuine share application money from the aforementioned share applicant/subscriber company.
24. Although, it is observed by the A.O that a perusal of the financial statements of the investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise P. Ltd., had disclosed its income at Rs. Nil during the year under consideration, and had revenue during the subject year, but he had lost sight of the fact that the said investor company had based on supporting documentary evidence duly established the "nature" and "source" of the investment made towards share application money with the assessee company, i.e. out of duly confirmed sale proceeds of its investments. The A.O had failed to say a word as to why the source of the investment made by the aforesaid share applicant/subscriber company, which in turn, is supported by the documentary evidence, viz. confirmation of the investor company (disclosing complete source of 24 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 investment made with the assessee company) and confirmations of the parties to whom investments had been sold by the investor company were to be discarded.
25. As observed by the CIT(Appeals), the share applicant/subscriber company had sufficient share capital/reserves and surplus of Rs.11.12 crore (approx.) to source the investment aggregating to Rs.2.05 crore with the assessee company. Apart from that, we find substance in the contention of the Ld. AR that the fact that the aforementioned investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise P. Ltd. had made an investment of Rs.39.99 lacs (approx.) during the year 2017-18 with another company, viz. M/s. Rupandham Steel Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, which, thereafter, had been accepted by the A.O. while framing assessment u/s. 143(3) dated 31.12.2019, therein further fortifies the creditworthiness of the investor company. Also, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that though the assessee company in the course of the assessment proceedings had filed before the A.O copies of share application forms, Page 64-73 of APB, copy of board resolution dated 05.04.2012 of the investor company authorising investment with the assessee company, Page 94 of APB, return of allotment of shares in Form 2, Page 95-102 of APB of the investor company, which substantiates the authenticity of the transaction of receipt of share application money by the assessee company, there is no whisper of word by the A.O as regards the said documents. In fact, we are of the view that the A.O merely based on generalized observations and without making any attempt to dislodge the documentary evidence which were filed by the assessee before him, as well as 25 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 disproving the explanation of the assessee company as regards its claim of having received genuine share application money from the aforesaid investor company, had summarily drawn adverse inferences, which we are afraid cannot be accepted.
26. Our aforesaid view that in a case where the assessee had placed on record sufficient documentary evidence to prove the authenticity of its claim of having received genuine share application money from the investor, viz. confirmation letter, PAN details, assessment report, mode of payment for share application money (through banks), bank account statements, cheque numbers, copy of board resolution, copy of balance sheet, Profit & Loss account for the year under consideration, the A.O could not merely based on generalized observation draw adverse inferences as regards the authenticity of the transaction without considering the documents placed by the assessee company before him, is supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 106 (Del) and that in the case of CIT Vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd., ITA No.71-72 & 84 of 2015 dated 12.08.2015. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that where the assessee had produced sufficient documents in the discharge of its initial onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant/subscriber company, then, it is incumbent on the part of the A.O to undertake some inquiry and investigation before concluding on the issue of creditworthiness, failing which, no addition could be made u/s. 68 of the Act.
26
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
27. Apropos the observation of the A.O. that the investor company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise P. Ltd. had disclosed income of Nil and failed to generate any revenue during the year under consideration, we are afraid that considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case before us, adverse inferences as regards the authenticity of the transaction under consideration could not have been merely drawn by the A.O on the said standalone basis. Our aforesaid view is supported by the order of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of Anjani Associates Vs. ITO, ITA No.27/RPR/2018 dated 10.08.2018 for A.Y.2014-15. The Tribunal had observed, that merely because lender companies had done meager business or have declared meager income, the same could not be a ground to disbelieve their creditworthiness especially when their respective "balance sheets" showed sufficient capital and reserves to advance such loans to the assessee company. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. AMI Industries (India) P. Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 219 (Bom.). In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, the A.O had observed, that though the share applicant company was in existence and had filed its income tax return for the year under consideration but had very meager income as disclosed in the return of income, thus, for the said reason, had doubted their creditworthiness. On appeal, the Tribunal, inter alia, observed that as the creditworthiness of the parties was proved from the bank accounts which revealed that they had funds to make payment for share application money and the said transaction was proved as per the 27 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 resolution passed in the meeting of the board of directors, thus, no adverse inferences as regards the authenticity of the assessee's claim of having received genuine share application money from them was liable to be drawn. The aforesaid view taken by the Tribunal, had thereafter, been approved by the Hon'ble High Court, which had dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Also, our aforesaid view is supported by the order of ITAT, Surat in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Gandhi Capital (2022) 194 ITD 396 (Surat) and that of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of BST Infratech Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 146 taxmann.com 406 (Kolkata - Trib.).
28. We, thus, based on our aforesaid observations, find no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly observed that as the assessee company had duly discharged the onus that was cast upon it as regards proving identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant company, viz. M/s. Modakpriya Merchandise P. Ltd. and also, the genuineness of the transaction of receipt of share application money from the said investor, uphold the same.
29. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.95/RPR/2020 for A.Y.2013-14 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. CO No.08/RPR/2023
A.Y.2013-14
30. The assessee company as a cross-objector has raised the following effective ground of cross-objection before us:
28
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
"1. The initiation of assessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 143(2) & consequent assessment order passed by AO are illegal, invalid ab initio void & without jurisdiction as the first notice u/s 143(2) issued & the assessment order passed are both by AO who did not have jurisdiction over assessee. Consequent addition of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- made by AO is illegal. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made in an illegal order. The assessment order is liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction."
31. The Ld. AR submitted that while for jurisdiction in the case of the assessee company was vested with the ITO-2(4), Raipur, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO-1(1), Raipur, Page 36 of APB. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that as the ITO-2(4), Raipur i.e. jurisdictional A.O having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee had not issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and had acted upon based on notice so issued by the ITO-1(1), Raipur, Page 36 of APB i.e. the A.O who had no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, therefore, the assessment order so passed u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2016 in absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction i.e. de-hors valid notice u/s. 143(2) by the jurisdictional A.O. could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down.
32. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
33. We have given thoughtful consideration and are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the claim of the Ld. AR. As the assessee company after having received notice u/s. 143(2) dated 09.09.2014 from the office of the ITO-1(1), Raipur, had not called in question the jurisdiction of the said A.O i.e. ITO-1(1), Raipur within 29 ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023 the stipulated time of one month from the date on which it was served with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, therefore, as per clause (a) to sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, it is divested of its jurisdiction of assailing the validity of the proceedings before us. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and Another v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 29304/2019, decided on May 1, 2023.
34. Resultantly, the cross objection filed by the assessee company is dismissed being devoid and bereft of any merits.
35. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross-objection filed by the assessee company are both dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in open court on 18th day of March, 2024
Sd/- Sd/-
ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
रायपरु / RAIPUR ; दनांक / Dated : 18th March, 2024
***SB
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant.
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. The CIT (Appeals)-II, Raipur (C.G.)
4. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.)
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, रायपरु बच,
रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur.
30
ITO-4(1), Raipur C.G Vs. M/s Shree Banke Bihari Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 95/RPR/2020 & CO No. 08/RPR/2023
6. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File.
आदे शानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // नजी स चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.