Smt. Lalitaben C.Kapadia, Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-6, Surat

ITA 1429/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9285 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILAJA RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, AM SMT. LALITABEN C. KAPADIA, 81, AMBICA INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY, UDHNA MAGDALIA ROAD, SURAT. VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIR-6, SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SMT. SHAILAJA RAI, D.R. O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FO LLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.16,62,396/- PAYA BLE TO SUNDRY CREDITORS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING DOUBLE ADDITION OF RS.1,24,824/- P AYABLE TO M/S UMA MAHESH FABRICS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE ON THE GROUND THAT, ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED AGAINST VAR IOUS NOTICES ISSUED TO ITA NO.1429/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR :2004-05 ITA NO.1429/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 2 HIM AND THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE HIM. IN A SHORT AND CRYPTIC ORDER LD. CIT(A) DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL AS UNDER :- THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION O F RS.1662396/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT H AD OBTAINED CREDITS FROM 16 DIFFERENT PARTIES BUT ADDRESSES OR CONFIRMA TIONS WERE NOT FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF THESE CREDITS. EVEN AFTER R EPEATED ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 142 AND A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.8.2006. TH E AO THEREFORE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THESE CREDITS WERE MERE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WERE OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN THREE MONTHS WIT HOUT ANY AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT OR PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND THEREFORE WE RE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AS ALREADY OBSERVED, THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE T O THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE ALSO AND IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THESE WERE TRADE LIABILITIES ONLY. HOWEVER, NO OTHE R MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD NOR ANY CONFIRMATIONS OF THESE LIABILITIE S HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE ME. IN VIEW OF WHICH I AM LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING DOUBLE ADDIT ION OF RS.1,24,824/- PAYABLE TO M/S UMA MAHESH TEXTILES. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION AND THEREFORE THIS GROUND ALSO FAILS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COMPLIANCE COULD NOT BE MADE BECAUSE OF VARIOUS DIFFICULTIES F ACED BY THE ASSESSEE AT HER RESIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE BEING A LADY, IS NOT AS SISTED PROPERLY AND COULD NOT RESPOND IN TIME TO VARIOUS NOTICES. HE AS SURED THE BENCH THAT HE WILL PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS/ASSURANCE MADE BY THE L D. AR, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT. THE LD. AR WILL OBTAIN THE DATE OF HEARING FROM LD. CIT(A) WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER AND MAKE ALL NECE SSARY COMPLIANCE FOR PROPER EFFECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. WITH THE A BOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). THE A PPEAL IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1429/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30.11.10. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 30.11.10. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 18/11/2010. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 23/11/2010 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..