9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Rs. 2,42,30,000/- without appreciating that the appellant has made the investment in equity shares in the previous year relevant to the Asst. Year 2012-13 in the companies M/s. Srishti Gems & Jewels Private Limited & M/s. Twinkle Estates Pvt. Ltd. and no dividend was received in the following years. 2.1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi has erred in sustaining the estimated notional addition of Rs. 14,53,800/- at the rate of 6% on the investment of Rs. 2,42,30,000/- without appreciating that the appellant has not made any alleged accommodation entries transactions in the year under appeal against which the impugned income has been estimated. 2.2. The lower authorities have erred in making /confirming the addition based on surmises, conjecture & suspicious without brining any iota of evidence on records. The appellant crave leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing." 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee filed its return of income on 18.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 10,020/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the total investment of assessee company in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant to the Asst. Year 2012-13 out of the Share Capital and Reserve & Surplus of Rs. 55,80,000/- & Rs. 2,31,52,667/- respectively, and that the Assessing Officer has not appreciated such investment and held that the company is a Entry Operator without brining any material on record for such assumption and further erred in estimating the alleged national Income of Rs. 2,42,30,000/- on surmises & conjectures. It was further submitted that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act which authorized the Assessing Officer to make an addition on national Income. It was further submitted that the national Income from the investment was not taxable in the absence of specific provision in the Income Tax Act. 8.4 Perusal of the Assessment Records of the Assessment Order shows that the Appellant Company shows very nominal receipts and Income, and that too in Cash. The Returned Income of the Appellant Company for the past few years are as under: (i) 2011-12 - Rs. Nil (ii) 2012-13 - Rs. 4,530/- (iii) 2013-14 - Rs. 9,779/- (iv) 2014-15 - Rs. 10,020/- 8.5 It was claimed that the Assessing Officer had erred in holding that the Company was a Entry Operator and estimating the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that income cannot be levied on hypothetical income. Income accrues when it becomes due but it must also be accompanied by a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount. Only then can it be said that for the purpose of taxability that the income is not hypothetical and it has really accrued to the assessee. He submitted that it has further been held that when a consistent view had been taken in favour of the assessee on the questions raised, then, there was no reason for the Court to take a different view unless there were very convincing reasons. He accordingly submitted that in view of the rule of consistency also, the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted. 7. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand strongly supported the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). 8. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the A.O. in the instant case made an addition of Rs. 14,53 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee may not have made imports), it is quite clear that in fact no real income but only hypothetical income had accrued to the assessee and section 28(iv) of the Act would be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Essentially, the Assessing Officer is required to be pragmatic and not pedantic. Secondly, as noted by the Tribunal, a consistent view has been taken in favour of the assessee on the questions raised, starting with the assessment year 1992-93, that the benefits under the advance licences or under the duty entitlement pass book do not represent the real income of the assessee. Consequently, there is no reason for us to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. In Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) this court did not think it appropriate to allow the reconsideration of an issue for a subsequent assessment year if the same "fundamental aspect" permeates in different assessment years. In arriving at this conclusion, this court referred to an interesting passage from Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation [1926] AC 155 (PC) wherein it was said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
