×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–47, Mumbai, dated 14/02/2018 and it pertains to the Assessment Year 2007-08. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 96,52,514/- and Rs. 79,25,181/- made on account of undisclosed cash balances in HSBC account.
2. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 96,52,514/- and Rs. 79,25,181/- made on account of undisclosed cash balance in HSBC accounts without appreciating the fact that SLP has been filed by the department against the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation and Murli Agro Products which have been relied upon by the Ld.CIT(A).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assesee is an individual, derives income from salary and income from other sources, filed his return of income for AY 2007-08 on 27/08/2007, declaring total income of Rs. 18,37,040/-. A search and seizure action was carried out u/s 132 of the I.T.Act, 1961, at the resident and business premises of entities of the Rosy Blue (India) Group.The assesee, Mr.Arun Kumar R. Mehta was also covered in the search action. Consequent to search, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T.Act, 1961 and determined total income at Rs. 1,94,14,740/- by making additions towards undisclosed cash balance in HSBC bank account, in the name of Ruby Enterprises Inc. and also White Cedar Investments Ltd.
3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assesee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A), for detailed reasons recorded in his appellate order dated 14/02/2018, deleted additions made by the AO towards cash balance lying in HSBC account, Geneva, in the name of Ruby Enterprises Inc. and White Cedar Investments Ltd. u/s 69A of the I.T.Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A) order, revenue is in appeal before us.
4. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in deleting additions made by the AO towards undisclosed cash balance in HSBC Bank account in the name of Ruby Enterprises Inc. and White cedar Investments Ltd, without appreciating the fact that the SLP filed by the department has been admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, against order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Continental warehousing corporation (Navsheva )Ltd and Murali Agro Products Ltd. In this r gard, he relied upon various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Dr A.V.Sree Kumar vs CIT (2018) 404 ITR 642.
5. The Ld. AR for the assesee, on the other hand submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assesee by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai ‘A’ Bench, in assessee own case for AY 2006-07 in ITA. No. 3712/Mum/2017, where the Tribunal under identical set of facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Murali Agro Products Ltd (2014) 49 taxmann.com 72, held that in absence of any incriminating material found, as a result of search, no additions could be made in the assessment framed u/s 153A of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Ld. AR, further submitted that even on merits, the Tribunal had considered necessary facts and held that additions towards unexplained cash in HSBC Bank account, Geneva in the name of Ruby Enterprises Inc.
and White Cedar Investments Ltd. cannot be made in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act, 1961.
6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully conside ed case laws relied upon by both the parties. We find that an ident cal issue had been considered by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai ‘A’ Bench in assessee own case for AY 2006-07 in ITA No. 3712/Mum/2017, where the Co-ordinate Bench, after considering relevant facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Murali Agro Product.Ltd, deleted additions made by the AO. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: