Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai

Dcit 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs Jik Industries Ltd, Mumbai on 7 February, 2019

                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                             "F" Bench, Mumbai
          Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Sandeep Gosain (JM)

           I.T.A. No. 7456/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2006-07)

           DCIT 2(2)(1)        M/s. JIK Industries Ltd.
           Room No. 545    Vs. 1,2,3, Gundecha
           5 t h Floor         Chambers, N.M. Road
           Aayakar Bhavan      Fort, Mumbai-400023.
           M.K. Road
           Mumbai-400 020.     PAN : AABCJ2982J
           (Appellant)         (Respondent)

                Assessee by                Shri Akash Kumar
                Department by              Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
                Date of Hearing            7.2.2019
                Date of Pronouncement      7.2.2019

                                  ORDER

Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 25.4.2013 passed by learned CIT(A)-50, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2006-07.

The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3532.20 lakhs relating to Share application money received by the assessee.

2. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of crystal items and chemicals. The Revenue carried out search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act on 4.2.2011 in the hands of the assessee. Consequent thereto, present assessment year for A.Y. 2006-07 was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer added share subscription money and share premium collected by the assessee treating them as unexplained cash credits. Addition so made worked out to Rs. 3532.20 lakhs.

2

M / s . J IK I n d us tr i e s L td .

3. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee contended that search party did not found any incriminating material relating to A.Y. 2006-07 more particularly relating to impugned addition. It was also submitted that the assessment of A.Y. 2006-07 did not abate. Accordingly by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com 78, the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer could not have made any addition in the case of unabated assessment, for which no incriminating material was found during the course of search. Learned CIT(A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. Revenue is aggrieved.

4. At the time of hearing, learned DR placed reliance on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. However, he could not point out that the impugned addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of any incriminating material.

5. Learned AR, on the contrary, strongly submitted that the Revenue did not unearth any incriminating material during the course of search to show that the share application money and premium collected by the assessee represent unexplained income of the assessee. Since the assessment of the impugned assessment year is not abated, he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. Accordingly he submitted that the order passed by learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference.

6. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that the order passed by learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference as he has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra), in order to hold that the impugned addition is liable to be deleted as the same has been made in respect of unabated assessment year, for which no incriminating 3 M / s . J IK I n d us tr i e s L td .

material relating to the impugned addition was found during the course of search. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by learned CIT(A).

7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 7.2.2019.

            Sd/-                                           Sd/-
      (SANDEEP GOSAIN)                               (B.R.BASKARAN)
      JUDICIAL MEMBER                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated : 7/2/2019

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

     1.   The Appellant
     2.   The Respondent
     3.   The CIT(A)
     4.   CIT
     5.   DR, ITAT, Mumbai
     6.   Guard File.
                                                            BY ORDER,
                //True Copy//

                                                      (Senior Private Secretary)
PS                                                        ITAT, Mumbai