ITO, New Delhi v. M/s Shiv Om Paper Mills (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4282/DEL/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 428220114 RSA 2009
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4282/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant ITO, New Delhi
Respondent M/s Shiv Om Paper Mills (P) Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 15-01-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 05-11-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA I.T.A. NO. 4282/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS. M/S. SHIV OM PAPER MILLS ( P) LTD. WARD 8(2) 29-A KEWAL PARK EXTENSION NEW DELHI. OPP. OUT GATE SUBZI MANDI AZADPUR DELHI-1100 33 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SK BHARTI SR.DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MAHESHWARI CA ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 20.08.2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 21 80 000 ADDED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECOR D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.1 69 30 000 FROM DIFFERENT PAR TIES AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED THE IDENTITY O F SEVEN SHARE APPLICANTS AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1 21 80 000. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS 2 BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN T HE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY I N THIS CONNECTION READ AS UNDER: IN THE INSTANT CASE ADDITIONS WERE MADE U/S.68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 21 80 000 IN RESPECT OF SEVEN PARTIES. THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE AS DETAILS WERE NOT FILED DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING. IN THE REMAND STAGE THE APPELLANT COOPERA TED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND ALSO PR ODUCED THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES WHO HAVE INVESTED FUND W ITH THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE A.O. HAS EXA MINED ALL THE SEVEN DIRECTORS AND STATED THAT SUCH DIRECTORS HAD ADMITTED TO INVEST THE FUND TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE NECESSARY CO PIES OF ACCOUNT APPEARING IN THEIR BOOKS ALONGWITH THE BANK STATEME NT WERE FILED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. AS IN THE REMAND REPORT NO SPECI FIC INFIRMITY REGARDING SUCH APPLICATION MONEY WAS RAISED HENCE IT IS CONSTRUED THAT THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS INV ESTED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO THE APPELLANT BY THESE EVEN CO MPANIES. THE ADDITION U/S.68 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE DELETE D. 3. ALONGWITH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE WE HAVE GO NE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT AVAILABLE ON PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE PAP ER BOOK. FROM PERUSAL OF 3 THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION OF THE REMAND REPORT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISPUTE ABOUT THE GENUINE NESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION: DURING THE COURSE OF OATH ADMINISTERED BY THE UND ERSIGNED THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEIR COMPANY AS MENTIONED AGAIN ST EACH NAME HAVE APPLIED FOR SHARES AND GIVEN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM THEY HA VE FILED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT APPEARING IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COP Y OF THE BANK STATEMENT FROM THE MONEY WAS REMITTED AND COPY OF R ETURN OF INCOME. BY THE SAID DOCUMENTS THE IDENTITY AS WELL AS CRED ITWORTHINESS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES HAS BEEN PROVED. THE STATEMENTS ON OATH RECORDED BY ME ARE ON RECORD AND PLACED IN THE ASSESSMENT RE CORDS WHICH ARE SENT HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL. 4. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPE ALS). THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.01.2010 ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15/01/2010 MOHAN LAL 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR