Revenue v. Resoondent M/Sagrawal Round Rolling Mills Limited (Assessee

13F'^-\^-wOivision BeiicbIN THE HI6H COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPURTax Case N0.1^_/^SWi^o^APPELLANTCommissionerofIncomeTax,/(Revenue)Raipur(VsM/sAgrawalRoundRolling Mills^RESPONDENy*^ (Assessee>^'.//Ltd,AgrawalSteelIndustries,-•'' ^'^»•OppositeJaikaAutoMobiles,io^.-•'''''^^^^^ .\^*a"^••'''^^•>'G.E.Road, Raipur (CG)^y..^"^"^6t>£AL UNbER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX^ACT.1961 ,^/aa HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURDIVISION BENCH VERSUS ResoondentM/sAgrawal Round Rolling Mills Limited(Assessee) Appeal Under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 Appearance:Shri Anand Dadaria, counsel for the Appellant.Shri MK Sinha, counsel for the Respondent. JUDGEMENT(22ndJuly,2013) 1. This is a tax appeal against the order dated 14.07.2010 of Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Bilaspur Bench, Camp at Raipur (the Tribunal) inrespect of the assessment year (AY) 2006-07. THE FACTS2.M/s Agrawal RoundRollingMills Limited(the Assessee)is acompany manufacturing iron and steel re-rolled products. 3.In the AY 2006-07, the Assessee filed its return on 29.11.2006showing the loss of ^2,78,11,510/-. 4.Subsequently, the notice under section 143(2) ofthe Income Tax Act(the Act) was issued against the Assessee and the query was askedregarding fhe share application money received by the Assessee. 5.The Assessee filed its reply on 31.10.2008 mentioning therein that ithas received share application money to the tune of ^1,49,05,0007- in therelevant year.The money was received through cheques and draftswhich was cleared by the banks.However, in case of the 12 applicantsfor which the detailed list was separately enclosed, necessary documentswere not there and as such a sum of ^61 ,00,000/-, which was the share f^['']%^-^«?yM£m'l%.&^^ application money ofthose 12 applicants was surrendered with a requestnot to initiate any penalty proceedings. 6. The Assessing Officer (the AO) passed an order under section 143(3)of the Act on 31.12.2008 adding the surrendered amount of ^61,00,000/-under section 68 of the Act and also ordered for initiation of the penaltyproceedings. 7.The AO imposed penalty of ^30,79,900/- being the 150% of the taxsought to be evaded by the Appellant by order dated 29.06.2009. 8. The AsseSsee filed an appeal, which was allowed on 03.08.2009 bythe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (CIT-A). 9. The Income Tax Department (tbe Department) filed an appeal beforethe Tribunal which was dismissed on 14.07.2010.Hence, the presenttax appeal. THE DECISION 10. We have heard counsel for the parties. 11. This appeal was admitted on 25.04.2011 on the following substantialquestion of law: 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deleting the penaltylevied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) oftheIncome Tax Act, which was in relation to addition of sharecapital under section 68 of the said Act, in respect of which,no details were furnished by the respondent assessee?' 12. The Tribunal as well as the CIT-A has recorded a finding and it is notdisputed by the Department that the sum which was added undersection 68 of the Act was the one which was surrendered by theAssessee itself. 13.Both the authorities below have recorded a finding that there wasneither any detection nor any informationin the possession of the .-'T"^-. .^-' ''"i:^. iiimmi Department except for the amount surrendered by the Assessee and inthese circumstances it cannot be said that there was any concealment.This is a finding of fact. There is no illegality in the same. 14. The tax case has no merit It is dismissed. Sd/-Pritinker DiwakerJudge Sd/-Chief Justice