Smt. Sarika Sirohi, Ghaziabad V. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 1066/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 106620114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH KUMAR GUPTA
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1066/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SARIKA SIROHI, C/O SIROHI ESTATE, HOUSE NO.8, SECTOR-8, CHIRANJEEV VIHAR, GHAZIABAD. PAN : AWKPS4503N VS. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, GHAZIABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATISH KUMAR GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA, SR.DR ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 28.11.2013 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAIN ST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.5,00,324/-MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF T HE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD JEWELLERY FOR A SUM OF RS.5,00,324/-. DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSE E TO PRODUCE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR VERMA, PROPRIETOR, M/S BANWARI LAL SUNIL KUMA R VERMA, WHO WAS ITA NO.1066/DEL/2014 2 SHOWN TO HAVE PURCHASED JEWELLERY FROM THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR VERMA ON THE APPOINTED DATE. THEREAFTER, SUMMONS U/S 131(1) WERE ISSUED TO SHRI SUNIL KUMAR VERMA. IT WAS STATED ON HIS BEHALF, THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO PERSONALLY PUT IN APPEARANCE BECAUSE OF OLD AGE AND ILLNESS. INCOME-TAX INSPECTOR WAS DEPU TED TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR VERMA WHICH WAS, IN F ACT, RECORDED. IN HIS STATEMENT, HE ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE GAVE HIM C ASH IN LIEU OF SALE OF OLD GOLD JEWELLERY AND, AFTER TAKING CASH, HE ISSUED CH EQUE APPARENTLY SHOWING AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR JEWELLERY. HE FURTHER AD MITTED THAT IN REALITY THERE WAS NO SALE AND PURCHASE OF OLD JEWELLERY. CONSIDER ING THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR VERMA, A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. IN VIEW OF THIS BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,324/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION AFTER TAKING REMAND REPO RT FROM THE AO. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US URGING THE DELETION OF AD DITION. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SHORT QUESTION WHICH ARISES FOR CON SIDERATION IS ABOUT THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,324/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D TO HAVE RECEIVED AND ITA NO.1066/DEL/2014 3 CREDITED IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF OLD JEWELLERY. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT SHE SOLD OLD GOLD JEWELLERY TO SHRI SUNIL KUMA R VERMA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S BANWARI LAL SUNIL KUMAR VERMA. DESPITE THE REQ UEST MADE BY THE AO FOR PRODUCING SHRI SUNIL KUMAR VERMA ALONG WITH HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, SUCH AS PURCHASE REGISTER, SALES REGISTER AND STOCK REGISTER, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR VERMA RECORDED BY THE INCOME-TAX INSPECTOR IN WHICH HE CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACTUALLY SELL ANY OLD JEW ELLERY. HE ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT IN CASH FROM THE ASSESSEE AND, AGAINST THE APPARENT SALE CONSIDERATION OF JEWELLERY, A CHEQUE WAS ISSUED FOR THE EQUAL AMOUNT. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND OF FACTS, I AM UNA BLE TO ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THIS CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- (R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 TH JULY, 2015. ITA NO.1066/DEL/2014 4 DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI