Neotech Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi Vs. ACIT circle-18(1), New Delhi

Neotech Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. appealed an addition of Rs 25 lakh made by the ACIT for the 2010-11 assessment year. The company argued that the reassessment proceedings were void and the addition under Section 68 was unjustified, especially since the loan was received and repaid by cheque. However, the assessee did not press the legal grounds related to the validity of the reassessment notices. The tribunal considered the documentary evidence provided by Neotech Nutrients regarding the loan transaction.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

ITA NO. 5140/DEL/2019 A.Y. : 2010-11

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM:

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-37, New Delhi in relation to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

"1. Because the action is challenged on facts and law that the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 are void ab initio on the ground that there was no valid service of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Because the action for initiation of reassessment proceedings in unreasonable since while recording reasons, there is non application of mind much less independent application of mind and merely relying upon investigation report by AO, further reasons recorded are vague, lacking tangible material / reasonable cause an justification.

3. Because the action is being challenged since the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been made without having cross examination of the person on whose statement or information the proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated which is in violation of the settled principle of law.

4. Because the action is being challenged since the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been made without making proper investigation from the other party hereby assessee has discharged the onus by providing relevant documents.

5. Because the action for addition u/s. 68 amounting Rs. 25,00,000/- is being challenged on facts and law as the said loan is received by cheque and repaid by cheque after 15 days.

Prayer

For any consequential relief and / or legal claim arising out of this appeal and for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee.

2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the legal grounds involved in ground nos. 1-4 of the appeal, hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed.

3. The facts relating to the issue in dispute is that assessee has filed the return of income at Rs. 5,60,890/- for the assessment year 2010-11 on 1.10.2010. Later on, notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2017. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee submitted on 06.10.2017 that return originally filed on 01.10.2010 for AY 2010-11 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. AO, after adopting the prescribed procedures, under the law and considering the reply filed by the assessee, made the addition of Rs. 25 lakh under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the  I.T. Act vide order dated 26.12.2017. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26.12.2017, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide his impugned order dated 30.03.2019 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee filed the appeal against the impugned order dated 30.3.2019, before the tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee draw our attention towards the written submissions alongwith documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the authorities below and especially draw our attention towards page number 30-31 of the paper book and stated that assessee has credited this entry of Rs. 25 lacs and repaid the same in the books of accounts of the assessee which is shown at page number 30 & 31 of the paper book, which remained explained, therefore, section 68 of the I.T. Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee, hence, he requested that the addition in dispute may be deleted.

5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

To read more in details, find the enclosed file