DCIT v. Prashant Premchand Godha

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0089 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1759 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH Aby T. Varkey, J.M. & Amarjit Singh, AM DCIT v. Prashant Premchand Godha I.T.A. No. 2564/Mum/2021, I.T. A. No. 2566/Mum/2021, I.T.A. No. 2568/Mum/2021, I.T.A. No. 2570/Mum/2021 and I.T.A. No. 2572/Mum/2021 8 April, 2024 Assessee by: Madhur Agrawal, Mani Jain Revenue by: K.C. Selvamani (DR) Mohd Arshad (ITO) ORDER *ABY T Varkey, J.M.* These appeals by the Revenue arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -53, Mumbai ( in short learned Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 03.06.2021 (for assessment year 2009-10 & assessment year 2010-11) and dated 09.06.2021 (for assessment year 2011-12 & assessment year 2012-13) and dated 17. 06.2021 (for assessment year 2014-15) against the orders passed by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai (in short the assessing officer) for the assessment years (in short AYs). Since all these appeals involved one single common issue, they were heard together. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose all the appeals by this consolidated order. 2. The sole grievance of the Revenue in all these appeals relate to the learned Commissioner (Appeals)s action of deleting the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of over-invoicing of purchases by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Briefly noted, the assessing officer had observed that the assessee was found in possession of cash in the course of search conducted under section 132 of the Act on 23-12-2014 and he had admitted in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act that the amount belonged to M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd and was generated out of over-invoicing done by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Later on, it is noted that the assessee had retracted his original statement and stated that the cash found from his residential premises represented his own unaccounted income and offered the same to tax in his hands in assessment year 2015-16. It is noted that this offer was accepted and assessed by the assessing officer. According to assessing officer however his retraction was an after-thought and that he was of the view that M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. had indulged in over-invoicing of purchases. The assessing officer had accordingly made substantive addition on account of over-invoicing in hands of M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd and correspondingly made protective addition in the hands of the assessee holding him to be the beneficiary of the over-invoicing. Being aggrieved by the above action of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to delete the same. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1759 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH

Aby T. Varkey, J.M. & Amarjit Singh, AM

DCIT v. Prashant Premchand Godha

I.T.A. No. 2564/Mum/2021, I.T. A. No. 2566/Mum/2021, I.T.A. No. 2568/Mum/2021, I.T.A. No. 2570/Mum/2021 and I.T.A. No. 2572/Mum/2021

8 April, 2024

Assessee by: Madhur Agrawal, Mani Jain

Revenue by: K.C. Selvamani (DR) Mohd Arshad (ITO)

ORDER

ABY T Varkey, J.M.

These appeals by the Revenue arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -53, Mumbai ( in short learned Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 03.06.2021 (for assessment year 2009-10 & assessment year 2010-11) and dated 09.06.2021 (for assessment year 2011-12 & assessment year 2012-13) and dated 17. 06.2021 (for assessment year 2014-15) against the orders passed by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai (in short the assessing officer) for the assessment years (in short AYs). Since all these appeals involved one single common issue, they were heard together. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose all the appeals by this consolidated order.

2. The sole grievance of the Revenue in all these appeals relate to the learned Commissioner (Appeals)s action of deleting the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of over-invoicing of purchases by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Briefly noted, the assessing officer had observed that the assessee was found in possession of cash in the course of search conducted under section 132 of the Act on 23-12-2014 and he had admitted in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act that the amount belonged to M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd and was generated out of over-invoicing done by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Later on, it is noted that the assessee had retracted his original statement and stated that the cash found from his residential premises represented his own unaccounted income and offered the same to tax in his hands in assessment year 2015-16. It is noted that this offer was accepted and assessed by the assessing officer. According to assessing officer however his retraction was an after-thought and that he was of the view that M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. had indulged in over-invoicing of purchases. The assessing officer had accordingly made substantive addition on account of over-invoicing in hands of M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd and correspondingly made protective addition in the hands of the assessee holding him to be the beneficiary of the over-invoicing. Being aggrieved by the above action of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to delete the same.