M/s. J.N. Traders, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1165/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2446 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R Y BALAWADE
• Assessee Lawyers: RISHI V LODHA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , !'!! # , $ % BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 1165/PN/2014 $& ' !(' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. J N TRADERS, GAT NO. 19/198, CHIKALI, PUNE-412114 PAN : AAFCJ1692H ....... / APPELLANT )& / V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RISHI V. LODHA REVENUE BY : SHRI R.Y. BALAWADE / DATE OF HEARING : 31-03-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-03-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, PUNE DATED 29-0 1-2014 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2 ITA NO. 1165/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE RE CORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F SCRAP DEALING. THE ASSESSEE FIELD ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR ON 30-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,09,47,030/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 21-10-2 009. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE FILED RE CONCILIATION OF INCOME TAX STATEMENT (ITS) DATA WHICH SHOWS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ITS DATA AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS UNDER: NAME OF PARTY/DEDUCTOR RECEIPT AS PER ITS DATA (IN RS.) RECEIPT AS PER BOOKS (IN RS.) DIFFERENCE BEING RECEIPTS NOT SHOWN IN BOOKS BHUSHAN STEEL LTD. 5,84,97,876 6,16,12,048 (31,14,172) S.M. ROLLING WORKS 3,28,11,467 3,23,74,426 4,37,041 SURESH PRESS WORKS 72,95,363 72,75,801 19,562 SHIRIPAD FILTERS P LTD. 13,42,682 10,60,290 2,82,392 J B ADVANI AND CO P LTD 13,10,787 8,59,687 4,51,100 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 10,67,757/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN ITS DATA AS SUPPRESSION OF PURCHASES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2011, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS). BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) T HE 3 ITA NO. 1165/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE CREDITORS, LEDGER EXTRACT OF SUPPLIERS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AND COPY OF RG23 AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) FORWARDED THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITION AL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENTS. BEFORE THE COMMENT S FROM ASSESSING OFFICER COULD BE RECEIVED, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER REJECTING THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING SOLITARY GROUND IN APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED C.I.T(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCOME TAX STATEMENT AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ` 10,67,757/-. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND T O THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. SHRI RISHI V. LODHA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY PURCHAS ES FROM THE SUPPLIERS AS MENTIONED IN ITS. SOME OF THE SUPPLIERS HAVE EVEN CONFIRMED THAT NO SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS HAS FILED LEDGER EXT RACT OF THE SUPPLIERS AND COPY OF CONFIRMATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE CREDIT ORS. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SENT TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENTS. HOWEVER, DESPITE REPEATED REMINDERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO SEND HIS COMMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN UP MATTER EACH OF THE SUPPLIERS AND THEY HAVE SUPPORTE D THE STAND OF ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR REFERRE D TO LETTER WRITTEN TO M/S. J.B. ADVANI & CO. PVT. LTD. AND THEIR REPLY AT PAGES 122 AND 123 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT TH E 4 ITA NO. 1165/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE REJECTED THE G ROUND RAISED IN FIRST APPEAL IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI R.Y. BALAWADE REPRESENTING TH E DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITION AL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THESE DOC UMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TH E ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK. THE ADDITION OF ` 10,67,757/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS. HOWEVER, NO CORRESPON DING INCOME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NO SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSES SEE FROM THE SUPPLIERS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE DOCUMENTS WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ALSO FAILED TO SEND HIS REPORT/COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENTS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THIS ISSUE NEEDS A REV ISIT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE DOC UMENTS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO, IN 5 ITA NO. 1165/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2016 AFTER HEARING OF THE APPEAL. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 31 ST MARCH, 2016 RK *+,$-.'/'(- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-V, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . /01 , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 2 34 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #5 / BY ORDER, %6 ,1 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE