Taxc/18/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Coral Barter Pvt. Ltd

APPEALS UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 Appearance: Shri Anand Dadaria, counsel for the Appellant.Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, counsel for the Respondent.Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, counsel for the Respondent. JUDGEMENT(11thMarch,2014) 1.These are the tax appeals by the Income Tax Department (theDepartment) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)against the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Bilaspur Bench, Camp at Raipur (the Tribunal) dismissing theappeals of the Department against M/s Carol Barter Private Limited,Bhilai (the Assessee) in respect of the assessment years (AYs) 2003-04and 2004-05. THE FACTS 2.Tax Appeal- 19 of 2012 is in respect of AY 2003-04 and TaxAppeal-18 of 2012 is in respect ofAY 2004-05. 3. The Assessee had filed its return of income in respect of the aforesaidAYs on 25.11.2003 and 26.10.2004 indicating the total[income][of][ ^550/-]and ^5,660/-, respectively. 4. A search operation was conducted under section 132(1) of the Act inthe premises of Trilok Singh Dhillon, a Director of the Assessee on 24.08.2004 and thereafter the notices under section 153A read withsection 153C of the Act were issued. 5. The Assessee filed its return on 07.11.2006 reiterating the sameincome. 6. The Assessing Officer (the AO) passedhis separate orders on28.12.2006 addinga sum of ^2,29,00,000/-and^2,00,00,0007-inrespect of the aforesaid AYs. 7.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed two separateappeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A).They were partly allowed on 20.03.2008.By the said order, the CIT-Aupheld the validity of the notice under section 153A readwith section153C ofthe Act, however, deleted the additions made by the AO. 8.The Department as well as the Assessee filed appeals before theTribunal.The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT-A and dismissed allappeals. Hence, the present two appeals by the Department. THE DECISION 9. We have heard counsel for the parties. 10.Tax Case- 19 of 2012 was admitted on 08.05.2012 on the followingsubstantial question of law: 'Whether in law and on the facts and circumstances ofthe case,the ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of ^2 crores madeby the AO under section 68 of the Act, 1961 on account ofunexplained cash credit byway of share application money?' 11.The counsel for the parties agreed that there is a mistake in theamount mentioned in the aforesaid question.It should be ^2.29 croresinstead of ^2 crores, .^"[--..^]. '^^;^j^l ^ 12. Tax Case- 18 of 2012 was admitted on 10.03.2014 on the followingsubstantial question of law: 'Whether in law and on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of ^2 croresmade by the AO under section 68 of the Act, 1961 on accountof unexplained cash credit byway of share application money?' 13.The basic question involved in both the appeals is regarding thedeletion of the amount added by the AO. 14. The Assessee is a finance company.In respective of the AYs, it hadreceivedsharemoney.IntheAY2003-04,ithadreceived^2,29,00,0007- from 20 private companies.In the AY 2004-05, it hadreceived ^2,00,00,000/- from 8 different companies. 15. The AO doubted the genuineness of the transaction of the receipt ofthe share capital and as such the amount received by the Assessee wasadded under section 68 of the Act. 16. The money was received through banking transaction from thecompanies. They were also Assessees under the Act. 17. Considering the aforesaid aspect as well as the evidence on record,theCIT-Ahasheldthat therewasno justificationtodoubt thegenuineness of the transaction.It is for this reason that the additionsmade by the AO were deleted.This finding has been upheld by theTribunal. There is no illegality in the same. 18. In view of above, the tax cases have no merit. They are dismissed.