Krishna Das Agarwal Vs DDIT/ADIT (Inv.) (ITAT Jaipur)
Black Money Act – Company Is a Separate Legal Entity and The Assessee Cannot Be Held to Be Beneficial Owner Ipso-Facto Due to Majority Shareholding / Directorship.-
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
These bunch of five appeals consist of one appeal filed by the assessee and other four filed by the revenue. These appeals are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur [ Here in after referred as Ld. CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 for all these years the order is dated 23.09.2022 and for A. Y. 2019-20 the order appealed is dated 31.08.2022. All these appeals are filed by the parties under the provision of section 18(1)/(2) of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 [ here in after referred as “BMA” for short].
2. The issues involved in these appeals for all the years are almost identical, common and related one assessee. Therefore, all these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order.
3. First of all, we take up the appeal of the revenue in appeal number BMA No. 03, 04 & 05/JP/2022 related to Assessment Year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. In this three-appeal revenue has taken all most similar grounds except the figures changed in the others years. Therefore, to avoid the repetition we reiterated the ground taken by revenue in appeal number BMA No. 03/JP/2022 here in below so as to decide these three appeals of the revenue. The grounds raised by the revenue in BMA No 03/JP/2022 are as under:
“1. The learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the taxpayer.
2. The learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the taxpayer by deleting the addition amounting to Rs 69,78,53,383/- which was made by the AO on protective basis in A.Y. 2016-17 on account of credits in the bank accounts of the assessee and foreign company M/s Agrasen Polymers FZE. The assessment for the A.Y. 2019-20 stands completed on income of Rs.1,46,42,44,881/- (this includes addition of Rs.69.78 crore) u/s 10(3) of the Black Money Act on a substantive basis. Second appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT has already been filed against deletion of substantive addition made by the AO, which is pending for adjudication.
3. The learned CIT Appeal has erred in granting relief to the taxpayer by admitting additional evidence, even though the additional evidence could not have been admitted as per stipulations laid down under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962. Further, since the additional evidence itself was not to be admitted, and has been incorrectly admitted, relief (even otherwise contested by revenue), could not have been available to the assessee.
4. The learned CIT appeal has erred in law in not exercising powers granted to her within the meaning of provisions of 17(1)(c) of BMA(UFIA) and Imposition of tax Act, 2015 whereby the learned Commissioner Appeal was mandated to do inquiries herself or to get carried out further inquiries. Instead of doing the same, the learned CIT appeal chose to grant relief to the taxpayer.
5. The Appellant craves leave or reserves the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”
6. The facts related to these years that the ld. AO has made the substantive addition in the A. Y. 2019-20 and protective addition as tabulated here in below in the following years, as the transactions are related / pertains that year:
