KANDARP TRADELINKS & SERVICES PVT. LTD., Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 1119/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5591 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI DCIT DR DHK

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1119/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S. KANDARP TRADELINKS & SERVICES (P) LTD. B-525-B, ROAD NO. 6, VKI AREA, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AACKJ 6158 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SMT. POONAM RAI, DCIT- DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/02/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 /02/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR DATED 24-09-2016 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2013-14 RAISING THEREIN GROUND OF APPEAL AS UNDER:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG, UNJUST AND HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,14,391/- MADE BY T HE AO BY SOLELY RELYING ON FORM 26AS. 2.1 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPIT E OF SENDING THE NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST TO ATTEND THE HEARING OF APPEAL FIXED ON 22-02-2017. CONSEQUENTLY THE BENCH IS LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ITA NO. 1119/JP/2016 M/S. KANDARP TRADELINK & SERVICES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT ,CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR 2 DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS, EX PARTE QUA THE ASSES SEE, AFTER HEARING LD. DR AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS A S EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 3.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT. AS NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON AN RECONCILIATIO N OF RECEIPTS SHOWN IN 26AS AND AS SHOWN IN BOOKS OF AC COUNTS WAS NOTICED THAT IN SOME CASES WHILE THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED OF TDS BUT RELATED INCOME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN. THESE CA SES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ON PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CERS ORDER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECONCILIATION AS F ORWARDED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN SOME CASES THE TDS CLAIMED EXCE SS HAS BEEN DISALLOWED WHILE IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE RETAI L LTD., SFPL CROPSCIENCE PVT. LTD. AND SONY INDIA (P). LTD. IT IS SEEN THAT CREDIT FOR TDS OF RS. 8,288/- HAVE BEEN T AKEN WHILE THE CORRESPONDING RECEIPTS OF RS. 4,14,30/- HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN. THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED T HAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY NEVER RECEIVED THE ABOVE AMOU NTS FROM THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT NO CREDIT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS APPEARING IN THE ACC OUNTS OF RESPECTIVE COMPANIES AND HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THE TDS CLAIMED THEREON MAY BE DISALLOWED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE CREDIT OF THE TDS AMOUNT ON THE THESE RECEIPTS, ALSO IN THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS GIVEN ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY TO RE CONCILE THE SAME AND EVEN IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, NO FU RTHER DETAILS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS TH AT CREDIT FOR THIS AMOUNT HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO NO RECONCILIATION HAS BEEN FORWARDED EITHER AT ASSESS MENT STAGE OR IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1119/JP/2016 M/S. KANDARP TRADELINK & SERVICES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT ,CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR 3 3.2 I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SUBMISSION CONTROVERTING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. IN SUCH A SITUATION, I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO CONCUR W ITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. THUS GROUND NOS. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 -02-20 17. SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22 /02/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. KANDARP TRADELINKS& SERVICES (P ) LTD., JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1119/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR