Calcutta High Court
C.I.T. Wb. Iii vs M/S. Sagun Commercial (P) Ltd on 17 February, 2011
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
ITA No. 54 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax)
Original Side
C.I.T. WB. III Appellant
Versus
M/S. SAGUN COMMERCIAL (P) LTD. Respondent
For Appellant : Mrs. S.Das (De), Advocate For Defendant/Respondent :
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BHATTACHARYA The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date : 17th February, 2011.
THE COURT : This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against Order dated 21st September, 2000 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, E Bench, Calcutta in I.T.A. No.2313(Cal) of 1994 relating to the assessment year 1986-87.
A Division Bench of this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law for determination of this appeal :-2
I) "Whether the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. was justified in law in upholding the order of C.I.T. (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.9,15,000 in respect of share application money received by the assessee ?
II) Whether the documentary evidence alone are sufficient for discharge of onus by the assessee to prove the genuineness of share application and allotment ?
III) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified in not upholding the order of the Assessing Officer making addition of Rs.9,1,5,000 claimed to be the share application money by the assessee since the share applicants were not produced before the Assessing Officer in spite of specific directions ?"
The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus :-
The assessment was made under section 143(3) wherein the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.9,15,000/- on account of undisclosed source of income of the assessee and called for an explanation from the assessee.3
The assessee, as it appears from records, explained that those amounts were received from various share applicants and the names and addresses of those persons were mentioned and their Permanent Income-Tax Account numbers, payment details, numbers of shareholding and bank transactions were disclosed. The Assessing Officer, as it appears from the assessment order, turned down the explanation on the sole ground that as the assessee could not produce those persons before him, such fact led him to presume that the assessee had no explanation to offer and, consequently, the said amount was added to the income of the assessee.
On an appeal preferred by the assessee, Income-tax Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said order after taking into consideration the fact that the assessee had produced the list of shareholders including their Permanent Income-tax Account numbers, payment details of the shareholding including other bank transactions and, thus, held that the reason assigned by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
Being dissatisfied, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal below and by the order impugned herein, the said Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4
Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal.
After hearing the learned advocate for the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we are at one with the Tribunal below as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the approach of the Assessing Officer cannot be supported. Merely because those applicants were not placed before the Assessing Officer, such fact could not justify disbelief of the explanation offered by the assessee when details of Permanent Account Nos. payment details of shareholding and other bank transactions relating to those payments were placed before the Assessing Officer. It appears that the Tribunal below has recorded specifically that the Assessing Officer totally failed to consider those documentary evidence produced by the assessee in arriving at such conclusion.
We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below and answer the questions formulated by the Division Bench in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The appeal is, thus, dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.5
Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
( BHATTACHARYA, J.) ( DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) Rsg AR(CR)