The ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal V. Shri Prashant Kumar Gupta, Bhopal

ITA 14/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 1422714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: YESHWANT SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA ITA 687 AND14/IND/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 687/IND/2013 A.Y.2009-10 SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA BHOPAL PAN ADZPG 1774H ::: APPELLANT VS ASSTT.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX 3(1) BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT ITA NO. 14/IND/2014 A.Y.2009-10 ASSTT.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX 3(1) BHOPAL ::: APPELLANT VS SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI YESHWANT SHARMA. REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 15.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 .1 1 .2015 PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA ITA 687 AND14/IND/2014 2 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THESE CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)I I, BHOPAL, DATED 18.10.2013. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S P.K. INDUSTRIES AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING, TRADING AND REPAIRING OF ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS. MOST OF THE SALE ARE TO THE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED RS. 1,46,56,013/- AS SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 55,12,7 28/- AS GENUINE AND THE BALANCE OF RS.84,54,128/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITROS FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NON - COMPLIANCE OF INFORMATION SOUGHT BY ISSUING NOTICES U /S 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) GRANTED PART RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA ITA 687 AND14/IND/2014 3 APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION OF RS.22,84,810/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS WHEREAS THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS OF RS.61,69,318/- OUT OFRS.84,54,128/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OUTSTAND ING IN THE NAME OF M/S SHUBH STEELS OF RS.22,84,810/-. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER DOUB TED THE PURCHASE NOR SALES AND THE TRADING RESULTS WERE ACCEPTED. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY STATING THAT IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THE PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA ITA 687 AND14/IND/2014 4 ONLY ISSUE IS REGARDING SHUBH STEELS FOR RS.22,24,81 0/-. THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 133( 6) WAS UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK INCOMPLETE ADDRESS. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AN EX-EMPLOYEE SHRI DASHRATH DWIVEDI ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATED THAT PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA HAS PURCHASED ANGLES, CHANNELS, SHUTTERS FROM M/S SHUBH STEEL IN THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2008-09 WHERE HE WAS WORKING FOR MARKETING. HE AL SO GAVE THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF PURCHASE OF AROUND RS. 20 TO 25 LACS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT E XCEPT FILING COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRO DUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS TRANSACTION . THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS INADVERTENTLY IGNORED THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF BILLS/INVOICES/CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTIES. THE LEARNE D PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA ITA 687 AND14/IND/2014 5 CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE TO M/S SHUBH STEEL IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 29 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAG ES 73 TO 83 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE S IDES, WE ADMIT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DECIDING DE NOVO AFTER CONSIDERING THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RE LIEF ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND SINCE THE LEARNED DR COULD NO T CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE FI ND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA ITA 687 AND14/IND/2014 6 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE FAILS AND DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2015 SD SD (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2015 DN/-