TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived from the Director of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, that investigations into excess claim of duty drawback on export of ready-made garments, through over-invoicing to Moscow, Dubai and Hamburg, had revealed that the assessee and others connected with the business of M/s Vision Inc., namely M/s Sri Ganesha Overseas International, M/s C & A International, M/s RA Overseas, M/s Bhavna Textile Impex were actually controlled by the assessee. In the statement recorded by the DRI, the assessee had admitted the over- invoicing of the exports made by him and the other firms controlled by him and he undertook to refund the excess duty drawback to the tune of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. In the re-assessment proceedings, the assessee stated that he had no connection with the firms named by the DRI and that all of these concerns were owned by other persons. However, the Assessing Officer, relying on the show cause notice dated 31.03.2004, issued by the DRI, held that the assessee had availed excess duty drawback of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, out of which he had refunded Rs. 10 lac to the Government as per evidence filed. The Assessing Officer treated the balance amount of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- as undisclosed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Year 2003-04, this amount had been assessed in the hands of that firm; that vide remand report dated 06.02.2013, the Assessing Officer of Shri Arun Gupta had stated that return of income had been filed by RA Overseas for Assessment Year 2003-04, disclosing business income of Rs. 11,58,060/-, on which, deduction u/s 80HHC of the IT Act had been claimed at Rs. 5,91,030; that in the rejoinder dated 14.02.2013 filed by the assessee to both these reports, the assessee had submitted before the Ld. CIT (A), inter alia, that the remand report in the case of Vision Inc. clearly supported the assessee's claim that the duty drawback received by the firm was a part of the taxable income of Vision Inc. for Assessment Year 2003-04, that the same had been assessed in the hands of the said firm and that the remand report in the case of RA Overseas, which established the independent assessment credentials of Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, was in conciliation with the income-tax return filed by Shri Arun Kumar Gupta and the audited accounts fully reflected the receipt of the duty drawback; that so, the assessee's claim that the duty drawback received by the other parties, i.e., Vision Inc., RA Overseas, B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITAT, allowing the Cross Objection filed by Vision Inc. for the reason that statutory notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act had not been served on it; that it had been stated before the Ld. CIT (A) that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, vide order dated 25.05.2012, had restored the matter to the Tribunal for disposal on merits and that proceedings before the Tribunal were pending; that Order dated 28.10.2010, passed by the CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of 'Vision Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai', had been placed before the Ld. CIT (A); that vide the said order, the CESTAT had set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs on the grounds that the documents relied on had not been provided to the assessee Vision Inc., that opportunity of cross- examination had not been allowed qua the persons whose statements had been used against Vision Inc. and that the various documents filed by Vision Inc. as proof of goods exported to Russia had not been considered; that it had also been stated before the Ld. CIT (A) that the set aside proceedings were pending before the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai; that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. CIT (A) has duly taken into consideratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty draw back made in the hands of M/s Vision Inc. has been deleted by the order of the CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi, dated 30.03.2007 after verifying and accepting the evidences filed that the goods had actually been shipped for export to Russia and Dubai, that the buyers had confirmed the transactions, that the goods had been physically delivered to the shipping agency as certified by the Customs Department, that the export proceeds were received as per the invoices through banking channels, and no case had been made out that the amounts had been given back to the respective parties. The CIT(A) has held that the amount of Rs. 68,97,158/- received as duty draw back by M/s Vision Inc. in the Financial Year 2002-03 had been properly disclosed as part of its income, and the same had not been disproved by the DRI. 4.5 It is further seen that the order of the Commissioner of Customs in the case of M/s Vision Inc. has been set aside by the CESTAT after observing that the Commissioner "made a verbatim reproduction of the allegations of the Department and recorded conclusions against the appellants in terms of the show cause notice." Considering the various submissions made by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the goods by the firms controlled by him, that these goods were over-valued so as to claim excess duty drawback from the Customs Authorities, and that the goods never reached Russia and so the duty drawback claimed was required to be recovered. It was stated in the said show cause notice that the assessee had admitted over-invoicing of exported goods by firms owned/controlled by him and that he had undertaken to refund the duty drawback amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- since the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 10 lac with the DRI. It was therefore, that the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- had been arrived at. 9. Pertinently, the statements of the assessee, recorded by the DRI on 15.01.2003, 17.02.2003 and 11.11.2003, i.e., the alleged statements of confession, stood retracted immediately after recording thereof and a complaint had been filed with the concerned SHO in this regard on 12.11.2003. The assessee maintains that the entire duty drawback had been received by other parties and the assessee did not have any concern with them. During the year, the only sources of income of the assessee were interest and dividend. The assessee produced his books of account and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent that the Assessing Officer did not have the records of Assessment Year 2003-04 and that he had not obtained the details of the duty drawback received as per the Profit & Loss Account. It was taken note of that the assessee had filed copy of return of income filed by Arun Gupta, Proprietor of RA Overseas for Assessment Year 2003-04 along with copy of audited balance sheet and Profit & Loss Account. These documents revealed that RA Overseas had received duty drawback of Rs. 1,47,20,092/- during the year. This duty drawback included that of Rs. 59,14,407/- of ten shipments between 15.04.2000 and 26.08.2002. Also, the assessee had filed supporting evidence in the shape of invoices, bills of lading and duty entitlement passbook. This evidence showed that the goods had been passed by the Customs Authorities. 10. Thus, the Ld. CIT (A) is found to have deleted the addition on having considered the entire voluminous evidence filed by the assessee which does not stand rebutted even before us. Ground No.1, which alleges that the Ld. CIT (A) was wrong in deleting the addition on the basis that the department had not brought any material that duty drawback of Rs. 2 crores had been receiv....