Case Filed on: 2019-06-14
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2021-09-13
Pronounced on: 2021-09-13
This case involves six appeals filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-I (LTU), New Delhi (the appellant) against Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. (the respondent) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. These appeals were filed against the orders dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi, which allowed the appeals of the assessee against orders passed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The main issue pertains to additions on account of cash transactions recorded in a pen drive seized from the premises of an employee of Dalmia Bharat Enterprises Ltd., Mr. Joydeep Basu. The data in the pen drive allegedly detailed unaccounted cash transactions totaling Rs. 649.18 crores. The substantive additions were made in the hands of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., while protective additions were made in the hands of Dalmia Bharat Enterprises Ltd., Mr. Joydeep Basu, and Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. based on the same data.
The appellant argued that the cash transactions detailed in the pen drive should be taxed in the hands of the respondent company as well. The respondent contended that the data did not belong to them and pointed out that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) had already settled the issue by accepting a disclosure of Rs. 90 crores from the promoters of the Dalmia group, Mr. Y.H. Dalmia and Mr. Gautam Dalmia, who admitted to the transactions in their individual capacities.
The Tribunal, after examining the facts and arguments, noted the following:
In light of the above findings, the Tribunal concluded that the protective additions in the hands of Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. could not be sustained, especially when the substantive additions based on the same data had been deleted in another case. The Tribunal also held that the order of the ITSC, which accepted the disclosure of Rs. 90 crores, was conclusive and covered the matter at hand.
Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A)-22, New Delhi, which had deleted the protective additions made by the Assessing Officer. The appeal filed by the DCIT, Circle-I (LTU), New Delhi, 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