Tayal Concast (P) Ltd., Muzaffarnagar V. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Muzaffarnagar

ITA 1216/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4462 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: PREM PRAKASH
• Section: 37; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1216/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TAYAL CONCAST (P) LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 2(4), C/O SH. ASHISH AGARWAL, ADV., MUZAFFARNAGAR 183/2, N.C. LINES, MUZAFFARNAGAR-251001 (PAN: AABCT1327P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. PREM PRAKASH, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 05.12.2017 OF THE LD. CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I) THAT THE ORDER IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON RECORD. II) THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN NOT ACCEPTING CREDITS OF RS. 10,64,650/- WITHOUT ANY BASE. III) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN NOT ACCEPTING SUNDRY CREDITORS OR RS. 4,15,598/- WITHOUT ANY BASE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2012 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 1,73,420/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY AND SYSTEM. THE NOTICE U/S. 14 3(2) OF THE INCOME 2 TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) DATED 26.9.2014 WAS ISSUED. AGAIN NOTICES U/S. 143(2)/142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO ISS UED ON 12.8.2015 TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE A CT, ALONGWITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12.10.2 015 AND IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAME, REQUISITE DETAILS / EVIDEN CES WERE FILED WHICH WERE CONSIDERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. COMPUTERIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED ALONGWITH T HE BILLS AND VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. THE AO PASSED THE AS SESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 23.3.2016 AND MADE THE ADDITIONS AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 16,25,7 40/-. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.12.2017 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ACCEPTED THE CREDITS OF RS. 10,6 4,650/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND ALSO NOT ACCEPTED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS O F RS. 4,15,598/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, HE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-38 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS; COPIES OF A/C OF PURCHASE PAYABLE; COP IES OF OLD SUNDRY CREDITORS; ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2009-10; 255 TAX MAN 305 (SC); 253 TAXMAN 117 (ALL.); 60 TTJ 674 (DEL.). HENCE, HE REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID PAPER BOO K. 3 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT HE HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER , WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CR EDITOR M/S PARAS & COMPANY, AGRA AMOUNTING TO RS.1064650/- IS CONCERNE D, I NOTE THAT THIS CREDITOR HAS BEEN CREATED ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES M ADE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE COMPLETE DET AILS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CREDITOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE THE SAME HAS REMAINED UNVERIFIED. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT S ALES OF RS.856131/- HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SAID ENTITY IN FY 2013-14 AND CASH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR RS.208469/- IN FY 2014-15 TO SQUARE U P THE CREDIT. IT IS CLEARLY OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO FURNISH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF SU NDRY CREDITOR. THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SALE AND CASH PAY MENTS TO IT IN SUBSEQUENT FYS. HAS REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED AND IS WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IT IS STRANGE THAT ON ONE HAN D THAT THE AR STATES THAT THERE ADDRESSES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AS THE CREDI TORS ARE OLD ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS CLAIMED THAT CASH PAYMENTS AND SAL ES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THEM. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS RIGHTLY HELD BY T HE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS. 10,64,650/ -, HENCE, HE CONFIRMED THE SAME AS ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED PUR CHASES U/S 37 OF THE ACT, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PAR T, HENCE, I UPHOLD 4 THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DISPUT E AND REJECT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 AS REGARDS ADDITIONS OF RS. 4,15,598/- IS CONCE RNED I.E. IN RESPET OF M/S SAI TRADERS RS. 1,23,388/-; M/S SATISH GOYAL DE POT RS. 1,19,100/- AND M/S SAVITRI COAL DEPOT RS. 1,73,100/-, I FIND T HAT THESE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN CREATED ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES MADE IN FY 200 8-09 AND HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD SINCE THEN. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CREDITORS D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE THE SAME HAVE REMAINED UN VERIFIED TO SHOW THEIR EXISTENCE AND CLAIM. THE SUBMISSION OF THE AS SESSEE FOR MAKING CASH PAYMENTS TO THEM IN FY 2014-15 HAS REMAINED UN SUBSTANTIATED AND WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IT IS STRANGE THAT ON ONE HAND THE AR STATES THAT THERE ADDRESSES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AS TH E CREDITORS ARE OLD ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS CLAIMED THAT CASH PAYMENTS HAV E BEEN MADE TO THEM. IT IS REVEALED FROM THESE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS OBTAINED BENEFIT BY CESSATION OF THESE LIABILITIES AS THERE IS NO EVIDE NCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE CREDITORS HAVE EVEN MADE CLAIM TO RECOVER THE OUTSTANDING BALANCES FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT RELEVANT THAT ASSESSEE , HAS SHOWN THESE CREDITS PAYABLES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DURING TH E YEAR. THE OVERALL FACTS OF THE CASE AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ENOUG H TO SHOW THAT THESE CREDIT BALANCES HAVE NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THESE CRED ITORS AND THUS THERE IS CESSATION OF LIABILITY ON THIS ACCOUNT. IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED TO MAKE ADDITIO NS OF RS.123388/-, RS.119100/- AND 173110/- THUS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,1 5,598/-, HENCE, HE 5 CONFIRMED THE SAME U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH DOE S NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DISPUTE AND REJECT THE GROUND NO. 2 RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18-02-2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 18/02/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES