Arvind Baloni, Mohali V. ITO, Mohali

ITA 10/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5094 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDERKANATA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN BADONI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER& MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 10/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. ARVIND BALONI, VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(2), SCF 81, PHASE 6, MOHALI MOHALI PAN NO. AEVPB5561J AN NO. AOMPK0470L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ARUN BADONI, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANATA, ADDL CIT DATE OF HEARING : 27.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.03.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]-2, GURGAON DATED 01.12.2016 . 2. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS AP PEAL IS RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RE LATION TO CERTAIN RECEIPTS SHOWN CREDITED TO THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 26AS BUT THE SAME BEING NOT REFLECTED INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ITA NO.10/CHD/2017- ARVIND BALONI, MOHALI. 2 ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION BY ESTIMATING 1 5% PROFITS ON THE SAID RECEIPTS. 3. IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT SHOWN TO BE CREDITED IN FORM NO. 26AS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED LETTERS O F THE CONCERNED PARTIES STATING THAT THE SAID CREDITS, IN FACT, DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ENTRIES WHICH WERE INADVERTENTLY MADE BY THOSE PARTIES HAD BEEN REVERS ED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED NEW / RECTIFIED FORM 26AS TO SHOW TH AT THE ENTRIES HAD BEEN REVERSED. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF OT HER PARTIES HAD MADE WRONG ENTRIES IN THEIR ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF ANY PAYMENT MADE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZ ED IN THAT RESPECT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE TO THE ABOVE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUC ED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON THE FILE TO PROVE THAT THE ENTRIES MAD E BY THE PARTIES SHOWING CREDITS TO THE ASSESSEE WERE ON ACCOUNT OF INADVERTENT MISTAKE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY DEFECT INTO THE ACCOUNTS O F THE ASSESSEE VIZ A VIZ BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ENTRIES FOUN D IN FORM IN 26AS HAD NOT BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY THE OTHER PARTIES WHO HAD SHOWN CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH P AYMENTS FROM THE SAID PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED LETTERS AN D REVISED 26AS ITA NO.10/CHD/2017- ARVIND BALONI, MOHALI. 3 FORM BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT NO SUCH PAYMENT S WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ORIGINAL ENTRIES WERE MADE DUE TO SOME INADVERTENT ERRORS. IN OUR VIEW, INTEREST OF JUSTIC E WILL BE WELL SERVED IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO EXAMINE IT AFRESH. IF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ABLE TO SHOW T HAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH CREDITS, BUT SHOWN IN FORM 26AS A ND FURTHER PROVES THAT THE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY THE RESPECTI VE PARTIES, THEN IN OUR VIEW, NO SUCH ADDITIONS WILL BE WARRANTED ON TH IS ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECT TO RE-EXAMI NE THE ISSUE AND PASS A AFRESH ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IN VIEW OF OUR D IRECTIONS GIVEN ABOVE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 27.03.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR