M/s Verma Plywood Industries, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1214/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60914 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHAN MANGAWA
• Keywords: Agreed addition
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 1214/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S VERMA PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, VS THE ITO, WARD 5(1 ), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAFCA3941C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI KRISHAN MANGAWA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 26.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.06.2012 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), CHANDIGARH DATED 13.10.2011 RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOL DING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/-. B) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPE LLANT DISPUTES THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDIN G THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAID A DDITION WAS AGREED ADDITION. 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECI DING THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION , DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON O R BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURING CONCERN AND MANUFACTURING PLYWOOD / P LYBOARD. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED IT S RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 84,030/- ON 31.10.200 7, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'T HE ACT') ON 13.3.2009. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) WAS ISSUED ON 26.9.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED ON 15.4.2009. AGAIN NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 4.6.2009 ON THE CHANGE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE A ND SHRI NEERAJ JAIN, CA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR AN ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY TO COVER UP ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS AN ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BUT THE APPELLANT AGREED FOR THE ADDITION, SUBJECT TO NO P ENALTY, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961. 2.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. THE LD. COUNSEL CANNOT CONTEST THE ADDITION BECAUSE IT WAS AN AGREED ADDITION. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDING LY CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI NEERAJ JAIN, CA APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AGREED TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/-. IT MEANS THE THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER PARAS 2.3 AND 2.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALSO, I T IS CLEAR THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN MY CONSI DERED OPINION, THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON AN AGREEMENT CAN NOT GIVE RISE TO THE GRIEVANCES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE AGITATED IN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE VIEW TAKEN BY ME IS DULY SUPPORTED BY FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS:- I) BANTA SINGH KARTAR SINGH V CIT, PATIALA (1980) 125 ITR 239(P&H) II) JIVATLAL PURTAPSHI V CIT, BOMBAY (1967) 65 ITR 261 (BOM) 4 7. IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE HE LD TO BE AGGRIEVED BY THESE ORDERS. THUS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REGA RDING DELETION OF ADDITION IS NEITHER COMPETENT NOR CAPABLE OF BEING ENTERTAIN ED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH JUNE, 2012. SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 27 TH JUNE, 2012 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR