M/s Amtek India Ltd.,, New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 53/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5320114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACA8504G
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 53/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 day(s)
Appellant M/s Amtek India Ltd.,, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 29-09-2010
Next Hearing Date 29-09-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 05-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A BEFORE HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT SHRI G.E.VEERABHADRAP PA AND SHRI C.L.SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.238/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2006-07 DY. C.I.T. VS M/S AMTEK INDIA LTD. CIR. 1(1) NEW DELHI. 41 LSC BHANOT APARTMENTS PUSHAP VIHAR NEW DELHI-110062. AND ITA NO.53/DEL/2010 ASSTT.YEAR: 2006-07 M/S AMTEK INDIA LTD. VS DY. C.I.T. 41 LSC BHANOT APARTMENTS CIR. 1(1) NEW DELHI. PUSHAP VIHAR NEW DELHI-110062. (PAN: AAACA8504G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.K.AGGARWAL ADV. DEPARTMENT BY: SH.SUKHBIR SINGH DR O R D E R PER : VEERABHADRAPPA V.P. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 12 .11.2009 OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-IV NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO AN ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O WITH REGARD TO THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION T OWARDS PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI OF RS 13 50 414/- AND RS 63 563/- RESPECTIV ELY. ACCORDING TO THE ITA NO. 238/DEL/2010 & ITA NO. 53/DEL/2010 2 A.O SINCE THESE AMOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN PAID WITHIN T HE PRESCRIBED LIMIT MENTIONED IN SECTION 2(24(X) READ WITH SECTION 36( 1)(VA) HENCE THE ADDITION. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) HOWEVER FOUND ALTHOUGH THERE IS A DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF THESE CONTRIBUTIONS BY FEW DAYS AFTER TH E DUE DATE CERTAINLY ALL THESE AMOUNTS STOOD PAID BEFORE THE FILING OF THE I NCOME-TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CIT (APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VINAY CEMENT LTD. 313 ITR (ST.) 1 DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS CONCLUDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. 319 ITR 306 AND DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. 321 ITR 508 APART FROM THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 5. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL RELA TES TO AN ADDITION OF RS 4 30 000/- IN RESPECT OF FOUR FRESH DEPOSITS WHI CH WERE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE A.O THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE A.O MADE ADDITION OF RS 29 32 892/- AS UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE I.T.ACT AND HE ALSO FURTHER DISALLOWE D PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS 2 96 151/- IN RESPECT THEREOF. 6. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE DEPOSITORS INCLUDING THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER S. THE CIT (APPEALS) ITA NO. 238/DEL/2010 & ITA NO. 53/DEL/2010 3 CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O AND WAS SUBST ANTIALLY SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS AND SOURCES OF CASH CREDITS AND DEL ETED THE ADDITION EXCEPT TWO DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS 1 35 000/-. THE BALANC E ADDITION WAS DELETED. 7. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DELETION OF ADDI TION OF RS 4 30 000/- IN RESPECT OF FOUR DEPOSITS RECEIVED DURING THE YEA R. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED BEFORE A PAPER BO OK CONTAINING 101 PAGES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED THEREIN THE DOCUMENTS EXP LAINING THE FIXED DEPOSITS FILED BEFORE THE A.O AND ALSO BEFORE THE C IT (A) AND COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 17.8.2009 IS ALSO FURNISHED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE DE TAILS FURNISHED INCLUDING THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS IN RESPECT OF TH E CASH CREDITS. THE ASSESSEE IN OUR VIEW HAS SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE CASH CREDITS. 47 DEPOSITS OUT OF 53 DEPOSITS WERE OLD DE POSITS WHICH ARE RENEWED. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLYING SECTION 68 I N RESPECT OF THESE DEPOSITS. IN RESPECT OF THE NEW DEPOSITS RECEIVED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUN T NUMBERS AND ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE DEPOSITORS. IT MUST BE APPRECIATED THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ALL THES E DETAILS SINCE THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE A.O WAS VERY SHORT AND THE ASSESSMEN T WAS GETTING TIME BARRED AND BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALL THESE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED AND THE CIT (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT THE A.O HAS ACCEPTED THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AS GENUINE. HAVING REGARD TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE FRESH DEPOSITS ALSO. WE CONFIRM H IS ORDER ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE. ITA NO. 238/DEL/2010 & ITA NO. 53/DEL/2010 4 9. THE FIRST GROUND IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATE S TO AN ADDITION OF RS 1 35 000/- WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF THE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. 10. HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE US THAT ONE THE DEPOSITORS LEFT INDIA DURING THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO COLLECT THOSE DETAILS. IN ANY CASE ALL THESE DEPOSITS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED ALL THE ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTE D THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDITS. THE ASSESSEE IT MUST NOT BE LOST SIG HT OF HAS DECLARED INCOME OF RS 13.08 CRORES WHO HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS 15.8 2 CRORES BY THE A.O. AS THE RECORDS REVEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED ALL THE DEPOSITS AND THE ASSESSEE BEING A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY HAS COLLECTED DEPOS ITS AND WHATEVER INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF ALL TH E DEPOSITS ARE FURNISHED. IT COULD BE POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE DEPOSITORS MIGHT HAVE LEFT INDIA AND THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED THESE DETAILS. IT DOES NOT MEAN T HAT THE DEPOSIT HAVE BECOME UNEXPLAINED AND DESERVES TO BE ADDED. WE MUS T APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ALMOST ALL THE DEPOSITORS ARE PROVED TO BE GEN UINE. DESPITE THE A.O MADE HUGE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE CASH CREDITS W ITHOUT BOTHERING TO CHECK THE DETAILS OF THE CASH CREDITS INCLUDING THE PERMA NENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND MOST OF THEM WERE JUST RENEWAL OF THE EARLIER DEPOS ITS. HAVING REGARD TO THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NO T FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITION. THE ADDITION OF RS 1 35 000/- SUSTAIN ED BY THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD STANDS DELETED. 11. THE NEXT DISPUTE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE U/S 14A ON THE GROUND OF RULE 8D OF THE ACT. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH TH E PARTIES AND ARE OF THE ITA NO. 238/DEL/2010 & ITA NO. 53/DEL/2010 5 OPINION THAT THE ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRES H IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LD. VS. DY. CIT & ANR. 234 CTR (BOM.) 1 WHERE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED. THE A.O SHALL GIVE ASSESSEE A FAIR AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER. 12. IN THE RESULT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMI SSED AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07 TH JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/ - (C.L.SETHI) (G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: JANUARY 07 2011. DRS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. DY. CIT CIR 1(1) NEW DELHI. 2. M/S AMTEK INDIA LTD. 41 LSC BHANOT APARTMENTS PUSHAP VIHAR NEW DELHI-110062. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-IV NEW DELHI. 5. DR ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT