TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri M.S.V.M. Prasad, CIT For The Respondent : Shri V. Rajasekaran, CA ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: All the appeals of the Revenue in respect of two independent assessees are arising out of the search conducted by the Revenue. The respective assessees have also filed crossobjections against the orders of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, we heard all the appeals and the cross-objections together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that there was a search in the premises of Sony Fireworks Private Limited on 21.10.2008 and in the residential premises of Shri P. Panjurajan. A simultaneous survey was also conducted under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in the factory premises of the assesseecompany on the same day. Incriminating materials were found and seized by Revenue authorities. M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation is one of the sister concerns of M/s Sony Fireworks Private Limited. M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation has not filed any return of income till the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,13,380/- reflected in the Profit Loss account of M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation and balance of ₹ 25,65,922/- was offered during the assessment year 2003-04. After considering the advance of ₹ 1,13,380/- offered for the assessment year 2004-05, the CIT(Appeals) came to a conclusion what is remaining to be taxed is only ₹ 18,06,969/-. According to the Ld. representative, the entire advance was already offered as income. Therefore, no addition is called for. 7. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. After considering the advance of ₹ 25,65,922/- for the assessment year 2003-04 and advance of ₹ 1,13,380/- for the assessment year 2004-05, the balance remaining to be taxed is only ₹ 18,06,969/-. In the absence of any material available on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the advance of ₹ 18,06,969/- cannot be allowed while computing the total income. Therefore, the same is rightly added to the income of the assessee. 8. Now coming to I.T.A. No.2018/Mds/2013 for assessment year 2006-07, the Ld. D.R. submitted that M/s Ajantha Trading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks Private Limited and not in the hands of Shri P. Panjurajan. Now the only contention of the Revenue before this Tribunal is that the bank OD limit was considered in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,66,66,283/-, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it is found on record that there was transfer from sister concern OD limit of ₹ 1,25,00,000/-. This OD limit cannot be ignored by the authorities below. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the contention of the Ld. D.R. Accordingly, the order of the lower authority is confirmed. 11. Now coming to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the only contention of the Revenue is that the advance received from customers represent increase in the credit balance in the name of M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation in the books of the sister concern. According to the Ld. D.R., even if the name of the customers are same as before the earlier assessment year, the credits introduced during the year under consideration were fresh credits, therefore, these are all different credits than the earlier one. The CIT(Appeals), however, deleted the addition on the ground that these represent the credits found in the earlier assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd any infirmity in the order of the lower authority and accordingly, the same is confirmed. 14. Now coming to cross-objections in C.O. Nos.188 to 191/Mds/2013, the contention of the assessee is that Shri P. Panjurajan filed revised return claiming the income of M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation as his income. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation received advance on behalf of M/s Sony Fireworks Private Limited for supply of fireworks. In the absence of any partnership deed, the contention of the assessee that it has to be assessed in the hands of Shri P. Panjurajan cannot be sustained. As discussed earlier, income of M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation has to be assessed either in the hands of M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation itself or in the hands of M/s Sony Fireworks Private Limited and definitely not in the hands of Shri P. Panjurajan or the so-called other partner. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation is another limb of M/s Sony Fireworks Private Limited. Therefore, the income accrued to M/s Ajantha Trading Corporation has to be assessed only in the hands of M/s Sony Fireworks Private Limited and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
