TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd , the tribunal has passed well reasoned order in which conscious decision is taken by tribunal in allowing Revenues appeal by holding that creditworthiness of the lender did not stood proved by the assessee and the order of the tribunal does not deserve our interference within limited scope of provisions of Section 254(2) of the 1961 Act as in our considered view, there is no mistake apparent from records in the appellate order passed by tribunal. - Decided against assessee. - Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 07/Alld./2018 [arising out of ITA No.53/ALLD/2015] - - - Dated:- 3-2-2021 - Shri. Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member And Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate For the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... screpancy in the address was due to the fact that Mrs. Reema Mittal was proprietor of concern namely M/s R R Steel Industries and PAN was allotted at the address of proprietor, Mrs. Reema Mittal which was at address at 706, Siddhartha Apartment , MP Enclave, Pitampura , New Delhi, while address of her proprietary concern was at 216, Agarwal Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. It is averred that ld. CIT(A) whose powers are co-terminus with that of powers of AO, accepted the contentions of the assessee and correctly deleted the additions to the income as were made by the AO to the tune of ₹ 37,60,601/-. It is further averred that the tribunal , vide appellate order dated 21.12.2017 erred in reversing the appellate order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the documents filed by assessee is to be treated as additional evidences filed for the first time before ld. CIT(A) and compliance of Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules were not made by ld. CIT(A) as he did not forwarded the said alleged additional evidences to AO for remand report as required u/r 46A of the 1962 Rules, then in that case, the tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by ld. CIT(A), as the proceedings got vitiated at the end of ld. CIT(A). It is also averred that tribunal committed serious mistake by holding that the ld. CIT(A) has not examined the issue whether the transaction has been made through banking channel or through by purchase or sale bills.It is also claimed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing and galvanizing of Tower for Power Supply and Railway and MS Channels, Angles, Ingots etc. The assessee case was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act, which culminated into an assessment order dated 14.03.2013 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, wherein, inter-alia, the AO made addition to the income of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 37,60,601/- , with respect to the cash credit of ₹ 37,60,601/- from said R R Steel being treated as unexplained , mainly on three grounds viz. a) The PAN AIEPM1341C pertains to Mrs. Reema Mittal whose address is Y- 706, Sidhartha Apartments, M P Enclave , Pitampura, New Delhi , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar also As per provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act, the primary onus is on the tax-payer who has received cash credit to cumulatively prove , the identity and creditworthiness of the person from whom cash credit was received and also genuineness of the transaction. The tribunal based on material on record was of the considered view that the assessee has failed to prove creditworthiness of M/s R R Steel Industries and hence it could not comply with the mandate of Section 68 of the 1961 Act, thus additions as were made by AO were upheld by tribunal , vide its order dated 21.12.2017. This is a well reasoned order passed by the tribunal and scope and mandate of Section 254(2) of the 1961 Act is very limited , and is restricted to correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of appeals were only seeking setting aside ld. CIT(A) appellate order back to the file of ld. AO , while tribunal erroneously allowed the appeal of the Revenue. This argument of the assessee is not correct as vide ground number 1 , 1.1 and 1.2 raised by Revenue before tribunal , the Revenue is seeking that ld. CIT(A) has erroneously allowed the appeal of the assessee and the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is to be reversed while AO order to be upheld , and it is only as an alternate ground that the Revenue is seeking to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for verification and confirm the evidences adduced by the assessee before ld. CIT(A). It is also claimed that the assessee has dealing of sale and purchase with the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
