M/s. Hitkari Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara

ITA 1005/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2134 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NK GOEL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1005/AHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) M/S. HITKARI PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 339, G.I.D.C. ESTATE, WAGHODIA, VADODARA-391760 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1 (1)(3), VADODARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACH5261K APPELLANT BY: SHRI ANIL R. SHAH AND KINJAL SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. GOEL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 16 -10-201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 -11-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, VADODARA DATED 01.02.2017 PERTAINING TO A .Y. 2012-13 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: ITA NO. 1005 /AHD/2017 . A.Y. 2012-13 2 THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND IN FACT IN C ONFIRMING INVOKING OF SEC.68 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION T HEREUNDER: 1. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMIT THAT SEC.68 DOES NOT AP PLY TO FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN MIND PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED AND THE IDENTITY, CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR WAS PROVED AS WELL AS THE GENUINEOUS OF TRANSACTION WAS ALSO PROVED AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE IF THE INC OME IS LIABLE TO BE ADDED THEN SHOULD BE INCOME OF BUSINESS AND NOT FROM OTHER SOU RCES IT HAVING DIRECT RELATION/CONNECTION WHICH SOURCE OF INCOME. 2. THE C1T(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.24,015/- U/S.36(L)(VA) R.W.S.2(24)(X) OF THE ACT AND SINCE EMPLOYER CONTRI BUTION TOWARDS P.P. HAS BEEN INCURRED DURING COURSE OF BUSINESS AND FOR PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE SAME IS DEPOSITED BEFORE FILING RETURN OF INCOME, THE CIT(A ) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 3. THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 13,644/- BEING INTEREST ON TDS PAID BY YOUR APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURIN G COURSE OF BUSINESS AND SINCE IT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY OR FOR ANY IN TH E LAW THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THERE UNDER. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT RELIEFS CLAIMED ABOV E BE ALLOWED AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE B USINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CORRUGATED BOXES. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A NEW UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 5,00,000/- FROM SHRI ZULFIKAR A. SHAIKH ON 1 2 TH MARCH, 2011. ON PERUSAL OF THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT, WHICH APPEARS TO BE SIGNED BY THE SO CALLED ITA NO. 1005 /AHD/2017 . A.Y. 2012-13 3 DEPOSITOR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED EITHER THE PAN OR FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE SAID PARTY. 4. BUT LD. A.O. WAS NOT AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/-. 5. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEA L BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. 6. NOW ASSESSEE HAS COME BEFORE US AND HE HAS STATED T HAT HE HAS REPAID THE AMOUNT GIVEN CONFIRMATION ACCOUNTS WHEREIN PAN NUMB ER, AADHAR CARD NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/- HAS BEEN PAID I N INSTALLMENT AND SAME IS AT PAPER BOOK ON PAGE NO. 96 & 97. 7. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES ONUS OF BONAFIDES OF FAIRLY DISCHARGE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 8. IN THIS RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. 9. NOW WE COME NEXT GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24051/- U/S. 36(1)(VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT REGARDING LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND. LOWER AUTHORITIES D ISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 24051/-. 10. NOW ASSESSEE HAS COME BEFORE US. 11. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ORDER IN T HE MATTER OF GSRTC (2014) ITA NO. 1005 /AHD/2017 . A.Y. 2012-13 4 41 TAXMANN.COM 100 WHEREIN IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES DISALLOWANCES WERE CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 12. NOW WE COME NEXT GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13644/- BEING INTEREST ON TDS PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 13. LD. A.R. STATED THAT THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO PRES S THE GROUND ON ACCOUNT OF SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 - 11- 2019 SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 18 /11/2019 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD