TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai, in short CIT(A), in appeal No. CIT(A)-8/IT-51/16-17 CIT(A)-8/745/14-15 even date 17.01.2018. The Assessments were framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Ys. 2008-09 2013-14 vide order dated 29.03.2016 17.03.2015, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ). 2. The first common issue in this two appeals of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO in respect of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act against the credit entry standing in the name of Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. amounting to ₹ 1.53 crores in AY 2008-09 and ₹ 2.30 crores in AY 2013-14. Facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the years hence, we will take the facts from AY 2008-09 and adjudicate the issue. The grounds raised in AY 2008-09 by Revenue read as under: - Ground in AY 2008-09 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,53,00,000/- made under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 allowing the appeal of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dalmia's Appeal for A.Y.2008-09 who is the director of MIs Venkatesh Securities Ltd. vide order No. CIT(A)-8IIT-753/14-15 dated 29.09.2016. He had decided this issue in favour of the appellant in which MIs. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd (BMPL) is involved. Further, in that case. Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai has confirmed the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) Mumbai vide order ITA No.7459/Mum12016 dated 17.10.2016. The relevant extract of the above order passed by my predecessor is reproduced here as follows:- 5.2. 1 He has not disputed the amount or the fact that the amount was received from BMPL and is duly reflected in audited books of both parties Identity or creditworthiness of BMPL has not been challenged Perusal of para 4.8 of the order reveals that the Assessing Officer has also not disputed that appellant has made payments to BMPL in FY' 2007-08 (AY 2008-09) and FY 2008-09 (AY 2009-10). Essentially, the Assessing Officer has held the impugned amount as accommodation entry- because he observed that the appellant had a running account with BMPL Further, he has held the receipt as income u/s. 28(iv). Finally, without invoking any particular section of the Act, the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in respect of loan taken from Artlinkd Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 1,75,000/- and Parth Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 25,000/- was also deleted by CIT(A) vide para 3.14 to 3.16 as under: - 3.1.4 Further, the same issue of cash credit w.r.t associate concern namely MIs Parth Trading Pvt. Ltd. has also been decided in the favour of the appellant by my Ld. Predecessor in appellants own case for AY 09-10 in appeal No. CIT(A)-8/IT94/13-14 dated 29.11.2015. So, that leaves only the cash credit of Rs 1.75.0001- from Artlink Wintrade Pvt. Ltd. 3.1.5 I find that similar additions were made of unproved' credits by the assessing officer in appellants case in earlier years and have been considered and decided in favour of assesse by my Ld. Predecessor in appellants appeals against order u/s 143(3) for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10. The nature of transactions, the non-completion of enquiries and the observations of the assessing officer in the assessment orders are similar and stereotype. to those in the instant appeal In order passed by my Ld. Predecessor in appeal No. CIT(A)-8/IT-68/14-15 dated 29.11.2016 for AY 2006-07, he has examined in detail applicability of section 68 on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon number of cases mentioned in his order and arrived at this conclusion that the assessee has proved the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of transaction, therefore, no addition can be raised hence allowed the claim of the assessee. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. There is no finding of any authority on record in which it has been held that M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. is not genuine company. The Department nowhere preferred the appeal against the judgment mentioned in the finding nor perverse finding is on record. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. 7. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal s decision in assessee s own case. As the issue is covered, the same was pointed out to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative. He fairly conceded that the issue is covered in favour of assessee. Hence, taking this issue as covered, we confirmed the order of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
