Dy. CIT v. Bhilai Jaypee Cement

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Raja Kaimoor Breweries (P) Ltd. v. ITO 2024 TaxPub(DT) 744 (Raip-Trib)
REFERRED Rahul Cold Storage v ITO 2022 TaxPub(DT) 8230 (Raipur- Trib)
REFERRED Dy CIT v MC Hospital 2022 TaxPub(DT) 6513 (Chen-Trib)
REFERRED Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO 2022 TaxPub(DT) 0009 (Bang-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1628 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3496 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Navodaya Castle (P) Ltd. v. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1868 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 897 (Raip-Trib) IN THE ITAT RAIPUR BENCH RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Dy. CIT v. Bhilai Jaypee Cement ITA No. 269/RPR/2023 19 February, 2024 Assessee by: R.B. Doshi, CA Revenue by: V.K. Singh, Commissioner-Departmental Representative ORDER *Arun Khodpia, A.M.* The present appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short, Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 8-6-2023 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ' The Act') for the assessment year (assessment year) 2011-12, which in turn arose from the order of the Assessing Officer (in short, The assessing officer) under section 143(3) read with section 147 of Act, dated 24-12-2018. 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: 1 . Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id. Commissioner (Appeals),NFAC was justified in deletion the addition of Rs. 2,16,33,868 made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the issue of unexplained cash credits. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,16,33,868 treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act/ 1961 whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) : (2019) 262 Taxmann 74 (SC) : (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1628 (SC) held that 'where assessee received share capita//premium, however there was failure of assessee to establish creditworthiness of investor companies, Assessing Officer was justified in passing the assessment order making additions under section 68 for share capita/premium received by assessee company.' 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,16,33,868 treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC) : (2015) 230 Taxmann 268 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1868 (SC) wherein it has been held that 'SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that certificate of incorporation, PAN etc., are not sufficient for purpose of identification of subscriber company when there is material to show that subscriber was a paper company and not a genuine investor.' SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 897 (Raip-Trib)

IN THE ITAT RAIPUR BENCH

RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

Dy. CIT v. Bhilai Jaypee Cement

ITA No. 269/RPR/2023

19 February, 2024

Assessee by: R.B. Doshi, CA

Revenue by: V.K. Singh, Commissioner-Departmental Representative

ORDER

Arun Khodpia, A.M.

The present appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short, Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 8-6-2023 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ' The Act') for the assessment year (assessment year) 2011-12, which in turn arose from the order of the Assessing Officer (in short, The assessing officer) under section 143(3) read with section 147 of Act, dated 24-12-2018.

2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under:

1 . Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id. Commissioner (Appeals),NFAC was justified in deletion the addition of Rs. 2,16,33,868 made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the issue of unexplained cash credits.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,16,33,868 treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act/ 1961 whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) : (2019) 262 Taxmann 74 (SC) : (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1628 (SC) held that 'where assessee received share capita//premium, however there was failure of assessee to establish creditworthiness of investor companies, Assessing Officer was justified in passing the assessment order making additions under section 68 for share capita/premium received by assessee company.'

3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,16,33,868 treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC) : (2015) 230 Taxmann 268 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1868 (SC) wherein it has been held that 'SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that certificate of incorporation, PAN etc., are not sufficient for purpose of identification of subscriber company when there is material to show that subscriber was a paper company and not a genuine investor.'