J.C.I.T., Range-3, Etah V. Etah Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Etah

ITA 156/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67493 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: WASEEM ARSHAD
• Assessee Lawyers: DEE
• Keywords: Capital receipt

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 156/AGRA/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR2009-10 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. ETAH DUGDH U TPADAK SAHKARI RANGE-3, ETAH SANGH LTD. ETAH (PAN AABCE 1673 P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAND RA MOHAN AND MS. PRARATHANA JALAN, C.AS. DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2013 ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. ITA NO.156/AGRA/2013 A.Y.2009-10 2 2. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS SOMEWHAT GENERAL IN NATURE AND WILL PRACTICALLY BE COVERED BY OTHER SPECIFIC GRIEVANCES RAISED IN APPEAL. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS THUS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 4 IN GROUND NO.2, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.20,64,535/- BY TREATING GRANT/SUBSIDIES TO BE OL D BALANCES PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEARS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THAT IT HAD NO DETAILS/DOCUMENTS TO CONFIRM THE YEARS TO WHICH THEY RELATED AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE RECEIVED. 5. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS GRIEVANCE, ONLY A FEW MATE RIAL FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. DURING THE COURSE OF EXPARTE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,08,08,294/- IN RES PECT OF CERTAIN BALANCES IN ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE SUSPECTED T O BE REVENUE RECEIPTS IN NATURE. HOWEVER, WHEN MATTER TRAVELLED IN APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT RS.83,67,323/- WERE CAPITAL RECEIPTS IN NATURE AND RS.20,64,535/- WERE IN RESPECT OF OLD BALANCES BROU GHT FORWARD. IN REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ACCEPTED THIS POSITION. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT INTER ALIA THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.20,64,535/- WAS ALSO DE LETED. LIBERTY, HOWEVER, WAS GIVEN TO BRING IT TO TAX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH M ONEY WAS RECEIVED. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE CIT(A), THE A.O. IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE SEE NO REASONS TO DISTURB THE IMPUGNED R ELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A). EVEN IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, NO MAT ERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE PERTAIN TO THE CURRENT ASSES SMENT YEAR, ONCE IT IS NOT IN ITA NO.156/AGRA/2013 A.Y.2009-10 3 DISPUTE THAT THE MONEY IS NOT RECEIVED IN THE PRESE NT YEAR, AS IS THE UNDISPUTED POSITION BEFORE US, LEARNED CIT(A) IS QUITE JUSTIFI ED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT YEAR, AND TAX THE SAME, IF AT ALL SO PERMISSIBLE, IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. WE CONFIRM THIS ACTION AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 7. GROUND NO.2 IS THE APPEAL IS THUS DISMISSED. 8. IN GROUND NO.3, THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN ABSENC E OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ADOPTING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% BY A .O. WAS JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.15,60,720/- WAS S UBSTANTIATE. 9. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUF FICIENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AO IS ALSO HEARD ON THE SAME, AND AS SUCH THE ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 5% WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). THE A.O. WAS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT BOOKS RESULTS. THE A.O. IS AGGRI EVED OF THE RELIEF SO GRANTED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE SEE NO REASONS TO DISTURB THE FINDINGS O F THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT EITHER. ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE FO R PERUSAL, AND THE AO DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE OBJECTIONS TO THE SAME, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ESTIMATION OF PROFITS, THE BOOK RESULTS HA VE TO BE ACCEPTED. WE APPROVE THE STAND OF THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTE RFERE IN THE MATTER. 11. GROUND NO.3 IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO.156/AGRA/2013 A.Y.2009-10 4 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER AMIT/ 20/12/2013 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED CIT CONCERNED, D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY