Appellant: DCIT Circle-I(LTU), New Delhi
Respondent: Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Result: Case concluded with final judgment on 2010-11
Case Filed on: 2019-06-14
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2021-09-13
Pronounced on: 2021-09-13
Before Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member, and Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing)
The case pertains to six appeals filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) Circle-I, LTU, New Delhi against Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. The appeals challenge the orders dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -22, New Delhi, which allowed the appeals made by Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd. for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2011-12. These orders were passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The primary issue in these appeals revolves around the addition of Rs. 22,80,39,000/- on protective basis to the income of Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. This addition was based on entries found in a pen drive seized from the premises of Mr. Joydeep Basu, an employee of another group company, Dalmia Bharat Enterprises Ltd. The entries in the pen drive indicated unaccounted cash transactions, which the DCIT contended were linked to Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd.
The DCIT argued that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the protective addition of Rs. 22,80,39,000/-. It was contended that the pen drive contained cash transactions related to Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd. The DCIT highlighted that the Settlement Commission’s order did not categorically state whether the disclosure of Rs. 90 crores by four individuals of the Dalmia family covered all the entries in the pen drive, and thus the entire amount should not have been deleted from the hands of the company.
The respondent argued that the CIT (A) correctly deleted the addition as the pen drive entries belonged to the individuals who had disclosed Rs. 90 crores before the Settlement Commission. The respondent further contended that the company was not involved in the transactions recorded in the pen drive, and the Settlement Commission’s order was final and conclusive, which should not be reopened.
The Tribunal noted that the pen drive was seized from an employee of another group company, and not from the assessee itself. The Settlement Commission had already accepted the disclosure made by the individuals of the Dalmia family and found that the pen drive entries belonged to them. The CIT (A) had deleted similar additions in the hands of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. and Dalmia Bharat Enterprises Ltd., which the Department had not appealed against, making those orders final.
Based on the facts, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A) deleting the protective addition in the hands of Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the pen drive entries belonged to the individuals who had already disclosed the income before the Settlement Commission, and therefore, the addition in the hands of the company was not justified.
Hence, the appeal filed by the DCIT was dismissed.
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform