9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director of assessee without summoning or adducing additional/supplementary evidence of any other person corroborating the allegation of the department regarding bogus payments made by assessee. We thus, have no hesitation in holding that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, least of all existence of any substantial question of law in the matter. - K. R. SHRIRAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE , JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar. For the Respondent : None present. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) 1. Appellant assails judgment and order dated 17th February 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), B Bench, Mumbai. While allowing the appeal filed by assessee, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) was passed determining the income to be Rs. 30,64,250/-. 3. Assessee challenged the order of AO before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ). The CIT(A) by his order dated 5th March 2013 concurred with the order passed by AO and the appeal was dismissed. Assessee challenged the order of CIT(A) before the ITAT which allowed the appeal. It is this order that is assailed in the present appeal. 4. The following Questions of Law were proposed by Appellant for determination : 6.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble ITAT has failed to consider when the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT vide order dtd. 30/06/2015 in ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be perverse since the finding recorded by it in para 9 of the order is in complete disregard to the finding recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in respect of the amounts of Rs. 3,15,00,000/- and Rs. 2,66,03,042/- in the case of Shri. Nitin M. Shah? 5. Appellant assails the order passed by the ITAT on various grounds inter alia including and mainly that firstly, the Tribunal did not interpret correctly the meaning of sections 28, 32 132(4) of the Act; secondly, the Tribunal failed to consider an order dated 30th June 2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4433/Mum/2013, which treated the amounts alleged to be bogus as being capitalized in the books of accounts on the basis that assessee was ineligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the CIT-39, Mumbai, had issued summons under Section 131 of the Act to five firms, whose personnel had allegedly received cheques from assessee and encashed the same and returned the cash to assessee after deducting their commission, the statement could be recorded only of one Shri. Soumil Parik, Proprietor of M/s. C. K. Enterprises. Similarly, statements were recorded of other Directors viz. Mr. Rahul Shah and Mr. Nitin Shah. The recording of statement of Mr. Nitin Shah has already been negated by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the group concern s case, i.e., Mr. Nitn Shah in ITA No. 4433/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-2009 , where the Tribunal after considering the entire issue has observed that the contention of department that assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the above facts that the assessee has produced copies of invoice for purchases and also the details of opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock. Even the assessee has proved the raw material used in construction of building, which is supported by valuation report. Merely on a statement, which was never confronted or no opportunity to cross examine the party was allowed, in that eventuality the capitalization cannot be denied to the assessee. We agree with the Revenue that the statement recorded by Revenue is a good starting point for making further investigation but it is not conclusive. The Revenue should have made further investigation and take it to logical conclusion but the AO left the job at the initial point itself, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
