Pawankumar M. Agarwal, Ahmedabad V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-11, Ahmedabad

ITA 1133/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8604 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV NOHTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

, MH MHMH MH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM , BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI, MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1133 / AHD/201 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) PAWANKUMAR M. AGARWAL A-53, CENTURY APARTMENT, OPP. SAMKIT BUNGLOW, NEAR GRAND BHAGWATI, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD 380 051 / VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 11, NOW CIR 5(3), AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACCPA 9063 F ( !' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' / RESPONDENT ) !' $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAURAV NOHTA, A.R. #' % $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. K. SINGH, SR. D.R. & '( % )* / DATE OF HEARING 03 /0 4 /2018 +,-. % )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 /04 /2018 / / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-5, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE A PPEAL NO.CIT(A)-5/ACIT CIR.11/432/2014-15 DATED 23/02/201 6 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 10/03/2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. ITA NO.1133/AHD/16 PAWANKUMAR M. AGARWAL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMIN G DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,65,660/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES MADE. HE OUG HT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF THE ENT IRE UNACCOUNTED STOCK WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT APPELLANT M ADE DISCLOSURE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BASED ON THE ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK FOUND AND LATER ON IT WAS FOUND THAT ONE BILL OF RS.13,65,660/- REMAINED TO BE ENTERED AS PURCHASES AND THE SAME WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE STOCK WAS TAKEN WI TH THE HELP OF EMPLOYEES OF ASSESSEE AND THE VALUATION OF THE STOC K WAS PREPARED WITH THE HELP OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PURCHASES AND SALE BILLS. THE STOCK WAS TAKEN AFTER ENTERING ALL THE PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS. AT THAT TIME, NOTHING WAS MENTIONED IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE OF RS.13,65,660/- WHILE FILING RETURN OF I NCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE SAME AND SUBMITTED THAT TH IS BILL WAS NOT RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND ADDITION OF RS.1 3,65,660/- WAS MADE BY THE LD. AO. 5. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND DURING THE COURSE OF FIRS T APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPIES OF PURC HASE BOOKS AND MONTHLY SUMMARY OF GREY CLOTH AND FINISHED CLOTH AN D REQUESTED TO LD. CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SAME COULD NOT BE FOUND ON TIME. THEREAFTER, REMAND REPORT WA S SOUGHT FROM THE LD. AO BUT LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT AGREE WITH THE C ONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO.1133/AHD/16 PAWANKUMAR M. AGARWAL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE APPELLANT. FR OM THE VERIFICATION, WE FIND THAT AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.18,98,441/- TOWARDS GROSS PROFIT, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ADDITION OF RS.13,65,660/- WAS DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN THE ORDER BUT HOWEVER, NO SEPARATE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THIS ISSU E AS GP ADDITION COVERED IT. NOW SAID GP ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED. THEREFORE, THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ASSESSEE STANDS APPROVE. THE AO HA S NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC REASON AS TO WHY THE BILL OF PURCHASE OF R S.13,65,660/- HAS BEEN REJECTED. NO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE TO AO TO PROVE THAT BILL IS NOT GENUINE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF PURCHASE BILLS, COPY OF LEDGE R AND CONFIRMATION OF AMBICA SYNFAB PVT LTD FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE M ADE, COPY OF QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND SALES AT PAGE NO.49 & 50 OF PAPER BOOK. 7. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DONE MANY TRANSACTIONS WITH AMBICA SYNFAB PVT LTD AND WHEN THE AO IS ACCEPTING OTHER TRANSACTION THEN HE CANNOT REJECT ONLY ONE TRANSACT ION PURCHASE BILL IS GENUINE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SU BMITTED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMBIKA SYNFAB PVT. LTD. HAVING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.21,62,610/- IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM THAT THE PARTY F ROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE DONE IS GENUINE TAXPAYING PARTY. HOW EVER, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE ALSO AUDITED AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS A RE ALSO MATCHED. THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE BOOKS ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. FURTHER ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON CASE O F LAW, IN THE CASE OF M/S. PASHUPATI NATH AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD HAVING TAX APPEAL NO.165 OF 2010 DECIDED ON 04/05/2017 BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: ON PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 27/10/2009 REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ITA NO.1133/AHD/16 PAWANKUMAR M. AGARWAL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - ACCOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED STANDARD AS PER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. THE ACCOUNT BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN REJ ECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE TRIBUNAL FORMED AN OPINIO N WHERE ONCE THE ACCOUNT BOOKS ARE EXPECTED TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE PRESCRIBED ACCOUNTING STANDARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NO T HAVE MADE ANY ADDITIONS TOWARDS THE SALE OF RICE TREATING IT TO B E OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR TOWARDS INVESTING IN STOCK OF RICE AND WHEAT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CONTROVERSY AS RAISED ABO VE IN THIS APPEAL STANDS DULY COVERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IT CANNOT B E SAID THAT ANY INVESTMENT WAS DONE BEYOND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 8. RELYING ON THE ABOVE SAID DECISION, DETAILS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,65,660/-. HENCE, THIS PRESENT APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09 / 0 4 /201 8 SD/- SD/- EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN YS[KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YS[KK LNL; U ;KF;D LNL; YS[KK LNL; U ;KF;D LNL; YS[KK LNL; U ;KF;D LNL; ( MANISH BORAD ) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/04/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS ITA NO.1133/AHD/16 PAWANKUMAR M. AGARWAL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 012) & 3) / CONCERNED CIT 4. & 3) ( !) / THE CIT(A)-5, AHMEDABAD. 5. 678 )'12 , !* 12. , 0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89 :( / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, #6!) ) //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 06/07/2018 (DICTATION-PAD 4 P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 09/04/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER