9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant : Shri Abhijit Patankar For The Respondent : Shri Mitesh Shah ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai ( CIT(A) for short) dated 11.09.2015 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D despite the express mandate to do so u/s. 14A of the IT Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in that no disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D can be made when there is no exempt income despite there being no such condition stipulated in the IT Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2 crores being payment made to M/s. Maginot Trading Company thereby disregarding the admission of bogus accommodation entry by Shri Balakrishna Goenka and also the evidence found in the seized material. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the total income in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not apply to the facts of this case as no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any actual income was received by the assessee and the same was includible in the total income. In the facts of the case, the Authorities held that since the investments made by the assessee in the sister concerns were not the actual income received by the assessee, they could not have been included in the total income. The findings of facts recorded by both the Authorities do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Since no substantial question of law arises in this income tax appeal, the income tax appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. Principally following the precedent as above, we do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search seizure action on 14.10.2010, stated as under, in response to question no.14; 'Q.24: Now I am showing you page no.46 61 of annexure A-l. An enquiry was conducted at the address given in the memo, however, no such party was found to be existing at either of the addresses given in the memo. Please furnish the address of this party and explain the transactions with them? Ans: The payments made to M/s. Maginot Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., amounting to total of ₹ 5 Cr, in the current financial year, made on account of supply of muram at the Raigad site of M/s. Welspun Maxsteel Ltd., is nothing but an accommodation entry arranged by one of the broker for generation of cash by debiting bogus expenses. I confirm that we have taken an accommodation entry to generate cash for expenditure. I have also taken a similar entry in the accounts of M/s.Welspun Syntex Ltd., for an amount ofRs.2 Cr in the current financial year. I take this opportunity to surrender this amount of ₹ 7 Cr (5 Cr in the hands of M/s.Welspun Maxsteel Ltd., 2 Cr in the hands of M/s.Welspun Syntex Ltd.,) as my unaccounted income generated by debiting bogus expenses and offer this amount as my ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made by the AO is unwarranted and therefore I delete the addition. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed. 11. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that this Tribunal in the case of M/s. JSW Steel (Salav) Limited vs. DCIT for the same assessment year has decided the identical issue against the assessee. We may gainfully refer to the relevant portion of the order of the ITAT dated 08.02.2017 in ITA No. 394/Mum/2015 as under: 9.4. We have heard the submissions and perused the material before us. Before proceeding further we would like to refer to question and answer No.14 of the statements recorded on 14.10.2010: Q.14: Now I am showing you page no.46 and 61 of annexure A-1. Sn enquiry was conducted at the address in the memo, however, no such party was found to be existing at either of the 69/15,70/15-JSW 394/15- Welspun addresses given in the memo. Please furnish the address of this party and explain the transactions with them. Ans: The payments made to M/s. Maginot Trading Co.Pvt. Ltd., amounting to total of ₹ 5.Crores, in the current financial yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
