I.T.O.-1(1), Agra V. Late Sh. Satish Chand Jain, Agra

ITA 166/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2160 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S D SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 166 AGRA/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), VS. LATE SHRI SATISH CHAND JAIN, AGRA PROP. M/S SALIGRAM SATISH CHAND JAIN THROUGH L/H SMT. NIRMALA DEVI JAIN (WIFE), 30/46, KUMHAR PARA, CHHIPITOLA, AGRA. (PAN AARPJ 3177 G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.D. SHARMA, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 17.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.07.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)- 1, AGRA DATED 20.12.2012 FOR A.Y. 2001-02, CHALLENG ING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.11,95,000/-. ITA NO.166/AGRA/2013 A.Y.2001-02 2 2. THE FACTS AS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE THA T IN THIS CASE ORIGINALLY AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 19.03 .2004 WAS PASSED DETERMINING THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.51,61,171 /- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,82,150/-. THE APPEAL WAS PREFERRED B EFORE LD. CIT(A) AND ALL ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, EXCEPT ADDI TION OF RS.11,95,000/- WAS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2005. THE ADDITION O F RS.11,95,000/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FRO M THE CUSTOMERS, WHICH COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THAT TIME AS BEING GENUINE ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AND HENCE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER SE CTION 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ON FILING OF APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY BOTH ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE I TAT, AGRA BENCH, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.370/AGR/2005 AND ITA N O. 376/AGRA/2005 DATED 17.07.2009 AND IN THE SAID ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.11,95,000/-, FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE A.O. A S UNDER:- RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2006 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN A .Y.2000-01 UNDER THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS ON THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE VARIOUS PARTIES FOR SUPPLY OF GOO DS MADE SUBSEQUENTLY AND THUS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY FRO M THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER THE GOODS HA D BEEN SOLD BY HIM TO THE NAMED 15 PERSONS AND THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FR OM THESE PERSONS ITA NO.166/AGRA/2013 A.Y.2001-02 3 HAD DUTY BEEN REFLECTED/ ADJUSTED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBJECT TO THE OUTCOME OF THE DIRECTED VE RIFICATION, THE ADDITION IS ORDERED DELETED. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENT ION OVER THERE THAT WHILE COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTED VERIFICATION, THE AO SHALL ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, REFERENCE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA NO. 5.2 OF THE FIRST A PPELLATE ORDER IN QUESTION. GROUND NO.1 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE ABOVE DIRECTION, THE A.O. A GAIN PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144/251/254 DATED 28.02.2011 AND AGAI N MADE THE SAME ADDITION. THE A.O. DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THE ASSESSEES G RAND SON AND HIS COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO THE FINDING ABOUT THE ADJUSTMENT OF ADVANCES AGAINST THE SALES. THE A.O. HAS MADE THE DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS PER CASH BOOK A SUM OF RS.20,89,803/- WAS SHOWN AS ADVANCE TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE FROM 15 DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING F.Y. 2000-01 A GAINST WHICH SALES WERE MADE TO RS.8,94,714/- TO THESE CUSTOMERS DURING THE YEAR LEAVING A SURPLUS OUTSTANDING BALANCE/ADVANCES OF RS.11,95,089/- AS O N 31.03.2001, WHICH WAS ADJUSTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT TWO FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. F.Y. 2001-02 AND F.Y. 2002- 03. THE A.O. NOTED THAT SINCE NO SUPPORTING EVIDENC ES WERE PRODUCED, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS AGAIN MADE. THE A.O. HO WEVER REPRODUCED THE ADJUSTMENT MADE AGAINST THE SALES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ADDITION WAS ITA NO.166/AGRA/2013 A.Y.2001-02 4 CHALLENGED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) CON SIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AN D FINDING OF THE A.O. FOUND THAT A.O. AFTER DETAILED VERIFICATION MADE FROM THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT HAS CLEARLY WRITTEN THAT THE ADVANCES SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE FROM 15 CUSTOMERS DURING THE F.Y. 2000-01 HAD BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALE DURING THE F.Y. 2000-01, 2001-02 AND 2002-03, WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, FOU ND THAT CLEAR CUT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE A.O. THAT ADVANCES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALES MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IN THE SUBS EQUENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. ARE AS PER THE DIRECTION OF TH E TRIBUNAL AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.95,089/- 4. LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON TH E OTHER HAND, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYIN G DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, IN THE LIGHT OF T HE SUBMISSION OF THE D.R., WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL . IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, EARLIER THE TRIBUNAL HAS ISSUED A DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE ISSUE IN A PARTICULAR MANNER. THE A.O. VERIFIED THE FACTS AS P ER DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO.166/AGRA/2013 A.Y.2001-02 5 AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE MATTER IN STEAD OF MAKING FURTHER ADDITION IN THE CASE. THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE BINDING OF THE A.O., THEREFORE, HE SHOULD HAVE NOT THE DEVIATED FR OM THE SAME. SINCE THE VERIFICATION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. AS PER DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 6. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FAILS AND IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAV NESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AMIT/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY