Shri Yusuf S.Sarvaiya, U T OF D & NH V. The ACIT., Vapi Circle, Vapi

ITA 1519/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89684 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIKESH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 69C; 68

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1519/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 YUSUF S. SARVAIYA BAVIS FALIA, UMERKUI ROAD SILVASSA, U.T. OF D.&N.H. PAN : ADZPS 8342 P VS ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE VAPI. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL REVENUE BY : SHRI NIKESH YADAV, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12/06/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/06/2015 $%/ O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 7. 2.2011 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 1999-2000. 2. THE GROUND NO.1, 2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL READ AS U NDER: 1. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND LAW, THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS A ND SURMISES AND IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSIS TANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS . 91,000/- OUT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES, TREATING THE SAME AS UNE XPLAINED CASH ITA NO.1519/AHD/2011 2 CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DESERVES TO BE DE LETED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THESE GROUNDS FOR ADJUDICATION, AND HENCE, THEY ARE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. THE GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RE ADS AS UNDER: 4. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSIS TANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS . 20,98,714/- OUT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TREATING THE SA ME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S. 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDIT ORS OF RS.20,98,714/-. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FU RNISH CONFIRMATION FOR THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED SOME CONFIRMA TIONS. ON VERIFICATION, THE AO FOUND THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE A NY PAN OR RUBBER STAMP OF THE CREDITORS, AND ALL THE CONFIRMATIONS W ERE MECHANICALLY TYPED AND MOST OF THEM WERE SIGNED BY AUTHORIZED SI GNATORY ONLY WHICH WERE APPARENTLY FABRICATED. THEREFORE, THE AO MADE ADDITION FOR RS.20,98,714/- BY TREATING THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS NOT GENUINE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE WAS EXAMINED EARLIER BY THE C IT(A) AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE TRIBUNA L SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAM E AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS O F SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THE AO WILL EXAMINE THEM. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS ITA NO.1519/AHD/2011 3 EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT I T WAS DIFFICULT TO TAKE A VIEW OTHER THAN ALREADY EXISTED ON RECORD. THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE FATHER AND SON CANNOT BE THE REASONABLE CAUSE T O GIVE FINDINGS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO CON TACT THE CREDITORS AND FILED FURTHER DETAILS. 7. BEFORE US, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AT PAGE NOS.20 TO 209 COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS, E VIDENCING SUBSEQUENT REPAYMENT AS WELL AS COPY OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR TH E YEAR ENDED 31.3.2000, AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AS PER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE EVIDENCE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ARGUED THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION S ALSO THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AT T HE REQUEST OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CREDITORS WITH THE DETAILS TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION AND THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 9. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.11.2007 IN ITA NO.3105, 3106/AHD/2007 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RESTO RED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH BY EXAMINING ALL ASPECTS OF LAW, AFTER GIVIN G ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FR OM THE ORDERS OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) FILED BEFORE US ALONG WITH THE APPEAL MEMO ITA NO.1519/AHD/2011 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE PAN OF THE CREDITO RS AND THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED WERE NOT SIGNED BY THE CREDITOR S, BUT BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND MADE ADDITION. TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT CREDIT ORS HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH SHOWS THA T THE CREDITORS WERE GENUINE, AND HAS PRAYED THAT THE MATER MAY BE ONCE AGAIN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE MA TTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE Y EAR 2007, AND OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT, TO SHOW THAT THE CREDITORS WERE GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS DI SPUTE BETWEEN THE FATHER AND SON, AND THE EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE FILE D. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 1999-2000, AND WE ARE I N THE YEAR 2015 AND MORE THAN 16 YEARS HAVE BEEN LAPSED SINCE THEN, AND THEREFORE, NO PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED BY RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SAME, AS DESPITE THE OPPORT UNITY PROVIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.11.2007 (SUPRA), T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL OF. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY THE 25 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/06/2015