9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded against Revenue. Addition on account of capital introduced - Held that:- The appellant submitted before him evidences like copy of receipt of income-tax of all the partners along with statement of total income and copy of accounts of the partners as appearing in the books of account of the appellant firm in support of capital introduced by the appellant which has been verified - Decided against Revenue. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Following COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - Any details supplied by the assessee in its return were not found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) - A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars - Decided against Revenue. - 1487,1364,1488/Ahd/2010 & 225/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2013 - N S Saini And Kul Bharat, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M K Patel, AR For the Respondent : Shri D K Mishra, Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate proceedings. 07. The appellant humbly prays that the appeal be allowed in toto. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed, thereby the AO made disallowances of the claim made u/s.80-IB, disallowance u/s.40a(ia), unsecured loans and introduction of capital. Against this, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal. 3. Both the assessee and Revenue has filed cross-appeals against the order of the ld.CIT(A). Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the ground Nos.1 2 are general in nature, therefore the same are not pressed. The ld.Sr.DR has not objected to the submission of the assessee, therefore on the basis of the submission made by the ld.counsel for the assessee ground Nos.1 2 are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground Nos.3 4 are against the disallowance of claim made u/s.80IB of the Act. Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect for the Y 2004-05, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not recorded any findings on the specific issues how raised in the additional grounds raised before us, we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the claim for deduction u/s.80IB of the Act afresh in accordance with law in the light of our aforesaid observations and of course, after allowing sufficient opportunity to both the parties. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon'ble MP High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hassomal, 298 ITR 22 (MP). Needless to say that the ld.CIT(A) may have any independent inquiries made in order to ascertain the correct facts, if he feels necessary. With these observations, ground no.1 in the appeal is disposed of." 5.1. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore this issue in this year also is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh after giving sufficient opportunities to the concerned parties. Ground Nos.3 4 are allowed but for statistical purposes only. 6. Ground No.5 is against confirmation of addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.14 lacs out of unsecured loan taken from M/s.Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed partly." 7.1. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding that the ld.AR failed to put up the details of confirmation and creditworthiness of these parties, however, the contention of ld.counsel for the assessee is that all the confirmations were duly placed on record of the ld.CIT(A). He has drawn our attention towards page Nos.164 to 166 of the paper-book. After considering all aspects of the matter, we find that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is cryptic and, therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue is restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh after verifying the details as submitted by the assessee. Needless to say that ld.CIT(A) will give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground No.5 is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. The other grounds are general in nature which require no independent adjudication. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Now, we take up Revenue's appeal in ITA No.1364/Ahd/2010 for AY 2005-06. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) with regard to the unsecured loans from Dr.Alka Gupta, National Minerals, SL Agarwal Sons HUF, Suresh Agarwal Sons HUF and Akshat Leasing Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd. has observed that these loans appeared to be genuine without giving any specific reasoning for arriving at such conclusion. Therefore, in our considered view, the order of ld.CIT(A) is not a speaking order, the same is hereby set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground No.3 is against deletion of addition made on account of capital introduced by the partners of RS.3,35,000/-. 15. Ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO, whereas ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 16. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that the appellant submitted before him evidences like copy of receipt of income-tax of all the partners along with statement of total income and copy of accounts of the partners as appearing in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the facts are identical as were in assessee's own case in ITA No.1467/Ahd/2010 for AY 2005-06(supra), wherein we have restored the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) following the decision of Hon'ble Coordinate Bench rendered in assessee's own case in ITA No.3207/Ahd/2007 for AY 2004-05. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances, therefore this year also, we restore this issue back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 21. Other grounds are general in nature which require no independent adjudication. 22. In the result, assessee's appeal for AY 2006-07 in ITA No.1488/Ahd/2010 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Lastly we take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.225/Ahd/2013 for AY 2006-07, wherein following grounds have been raised:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.7,85,600/- levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that the order of the AO be restored. 3. The appellant craves to add, modify or alter any gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... difference of opinion. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion the issue of concealment now stood directly covered by a latest decision of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., 322 ITR 158 wherein the observation of the Hon'ble court was as under:- "Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Decision of the Gujarat High Court affirmed." Respectfully following this decision we hereby confirm the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue." 24.2. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case in this year also, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of coordinate Bench, we hereby confirm the finding of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 25. We summarize the result as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
