sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 Coal India Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand
 Arun Kumar vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Sushila N. Rungta vs. TRO (Supreme Court)
  27.5 LPA-Opening Senior Manager - Assurance Services / Statutory Audit for Big4
 ITO vs. Mohanraj Trading & Exchange (ITAT Mumbai)
 XLHealth Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court)
  CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Shri Himanshu Goel, E-1/11, 2nd Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 057. vs The ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi.
 Microsoft India (R & D) Pvt. Ltd. 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road New Delhi vs DCIT Circle-16(2), C.R. Building New Delhi
 Dy.CIT, Circle 1(1)(1) International Taxation Room No.409, E-2 Block 4th Floor, Civic Centre Near Minto Road New Delhi vs Smt. Asha Kumar Agarwal C/o Yogi Associates, C.A. E-335, East of Kailash New Delhi 110 065

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-45, Room No.659, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs. M/s Pooja Equireasearch Pvt.Ltd., A/25, Abhinav Apartment, Mathuradas Road, Kandivali,(W), Mumbai-400067
January, 19th 2015
                     ,                  ""          

         .. ,                             .. ,   

               ./I.T.A. Nos.3879 & 3909/Mum/2011
           (   / Assessment Years :2003-04 & 2002-03)

  Dy.Commissioner of Income /                M/s       Pooja   Equireasearch
  Tax-Central Circle-45,    Vs.              Pvt.Ltd.,
  Room No.659, 6th Floor,                    A/25, Abhinav Apartment,
  Aayakar Bhavan,                            Mathuradas Road,
  M K Road,                                  Kandivali,(W),
  Mumbai-400020                              Mumbai-400067
        ( /Appellant)               ..       (    / Respondent)

                . /   . / PAN/GIRNo. :AAACP6499F

             / Revenue by                :   Shri Premand J
               /Assessee by                  Shri M Subramanian

              / Date of Hearing
                                                   : 1.1.2015
             /Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2015

                                 / O R D E R

 Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:

       Both the appeals filed at the instance of revenue are directed
 against the separate orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-36, Mumbai and they
 relate to the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04. The revenue is
 aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by
 the assessing officer u/s 68 of the Act.
                                     2                   3879&3909/ Mum/2011

2.    We heard the parties and perused the record. In assessment year
2002-03, the assessing officer has assessed the credit balance of
Rs.70,83,180/- appearing in the name of M/s Nageshwar Investments Pvt
Ltd u/s 68 of the Act.   In assessment year 2003-04, the assessing officer
has assessed following cash credits as income of the assessee u/s 68 of
the Act:-
      Share Application money from M/s D Kumar
          Trading Company Private Limited              10,00,000
      Unsecured Loan from M/s R keshavlal Traders
                  Private Limited                      75,00,000

The assessment of both the years have been re-opened by the assessing
officer, consequent to the information received at the time of search
conducted in the case of M/s SKS Ispat Group. In connection with the
above said search proceedings, the directors of the companies, from
whom the assessee had received loans/share application money, were
examined and in the statements taken from them on oath u/s 131 of the
Act, it appears that they have admitted that they have given
accommodation entries.     Under these background, the assessing officer
rejected the documents filed by the assessee and accordingly assessed the
above amounts as unexplained Cash Credits in the respective years u/s 68
of the Act.

3.    However, a perusal of the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) would show
that the Ld CIT(A) has failed to consider and address the ground on which
the impugned assessments have been made.          We notice that the Ld
CIT(A) has deleted the assessments of cash credits in both the years on
the reasoning that the assessee has discharged the burden placed upon it
u/s 68 of the Act by proving the identity and credit worthiness of the
creditor and the genuineness of the transactions. We may notice that the
assessing officer has made the impugned additions only doubting about
                                       3                    3879&3909/ Mum/2011

the genuineness of the transactions on the basis of facts, which surfaced
during the course of search proceedings conducted in the hands of M/s
SKS Ispat Group and also on the basis of statement taken from the
directors of the parties from whom the assessee had received funds. We
notice that the Ld CIT(A) has failed to address those vital issue, on which
the impugned additions have been made. Thus, the question of
genuineness of transactions remain unaswered in both the years.

4.    Under these set of facts, we are not able to sustain the orders of Ld
CIT(A) in both the years, since the first appellate authority has failed to
address the ground on which the impugned additions have been made.
Hence, in our view, the additions made in both the years require fresh
adjudication by Ld CIT(A) by duly addressing the ground on which the
impugned additions have been made. Accordingly, we set aside the orders
passed by Ld CIT(A) in both the years and restore them to his file with the
direction to examine them afresh. The Ld CIT(A) is directed to consider
and address the grounds on which the assessing officer had made the
additions. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the Ld
CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.

5.        In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are treated as
allowed for statistical purposes.

          The above order was pronounced in the open court on 16th

               16 th Jan 2015    

     sd                                            sd

(.. / H.L. KARWA)                           (..  ,/ B.R. BASKARAN)
  / PRESIDENT                                /Accountant Member
  Mumbai: 16th Jan, 2015.

                            4                3879&3909/ Mum/2011

. ../ SRL , Sr. PS

        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.  / The Respondent.
3.     () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4.      / CIT concerned
5.      ,     ,                   /
     DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6.     / Guard file.

                                              / BY ORDER,
            true copy
                                      (Asstt. Registrar)
                                ,   /ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Privacy Policy

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions