PLUMETTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI v. ITO 9(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2813/MUM/2016 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 281319914 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AADCP0605L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2813/MUM/2016
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant PLUMETTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 9(2)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-05-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 31-05-2021
Last Hearing Date 03-07-2018
First Hearing Date 20-10-2020
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 15-04-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFA UR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO. 2813/MUM./2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 12 ) M/S. PLUMETTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. B 208 SHANTIVAN II RAHEJA TOWNSHIP MALAD (EAST) MUMBAI 400 097 PAN AADCP0605L . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(2)(4) MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR PARIDA REVENUE BY : SHRI SREEKAR DATE OF HEARING 2 3 . 0 3 .202 1 DATE OF ORDER 31.05.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN A.M. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25 TH JANUARY 2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 21 MUMBAI PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 12. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF ` 8 21 68 000 AND ` 35 00 000 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 2 M/S. PLUMETTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION BY TREATING CASH DEPOSITED ` 11 90 000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN DISALLOWANCE OF ` 2 54 47 349 AS EXPENSES CLAIMED AGAINST INTEREST AND ALSO DISALLOWING ` 1 00 000 CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND 271D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS ON THE CASE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 3. IN THIS CASE THE R ETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 7 TH FEBRUARY 2012 SHOWING INCOME OF ` 9 98 170. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOME AT ` 11 34 03 520. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AGGREGATING TO ` 32 57 19 000. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY DURING THE YEAR FROM 15 PARTIES AGGREGATING TO ` 48 02 79 000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE CASH CREDITS AND CALLED FOR THE DETAILS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. NOTI CES UNDER SECTION 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM CLAIM WAS MADE REGARDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY 3 M/S. PLUMETTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE DETAILS PROVING THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS FOR EIGHT PARTIES FROM WHOM THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ` 8 21 68 000 WERE RECEIVED. HE TREATED THE AMOUNT SO CREDITED TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT AT ` 8 21 68 000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CALLE D FOR DETAILS IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS . HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED ` 35 00 000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF ` 2 57 62 349 HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE DETAILS AS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSES SING OFFICER HELD THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES AS UNEXPLAINED. SIMILARLY THE CLAIM FOR DONATION OF ` 1 00 000 WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. 6. FROM THE BANK STATEMENT FILED IN RESPECT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IN UNION BANK ACCOUNT NO.464901010036300 THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTE D THAT CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES AGGREGATING TO ` 11 90 000. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW THE 4 M/S. PLUMETTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE MADE AN AD DITION OF ` 11 90 000 UNDER SECTION 68 IN THIS REGARD. 7. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHARE APPLICAN TS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH IT BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER SUPPORTING THE EXPLANATION REGARDING UNSECURED LOANS AND CASH DEPOSIT ARE FILED AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF ` 8 21 68 000 AND 35 00 000 WERE UPHEL D. 8. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF ` 2 54 47 349 (WRONGLY MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ` 2 57 62 349 IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEA L) AND ` 1 00 000 ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIMS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A PURPORTED EXTRACT OF OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER ITS MEMORAND UM OF ASSOCIATION AS PER WHICH IT CAN LEND WITH OR WITHOUT INTEREST. NO COPY OF M&A WAS FILED. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON A PERUSAL OF THE LIST OF EXPENSES SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT HELD THAT THE SAID EXPENSES OF ` 2 54 47 349 IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENSES. THE DONATION OF ` 1 00 000 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HELD TO BE 5 M/S. PLUMETTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. NO T AS BUSINESS EXPENSES. HE HELD THAT GENUINENESS OF SUCH CLAIM OF LOSS IS NOT ESTABLISHED. 9. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT CASE BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY OBJECTION TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITIONS ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION AND NOT ON MERIT. CONSEQUENTLY WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE FILE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION ON MERIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROVIDE AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE NECESSARY 6 M/S. PLUMETTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM MADE. THUS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.05.2021 SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 31.05.2021 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR ITAT MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI