Amit Sharma, Faridabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1664/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74346 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H G SEMA
• Assessee Lawyers: VK SABHARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1664/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1664/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2006-07 AMIT SHARMA, HOUSE NO. 1753, SECTOR-16, FARIDABAD, HARYANA (PAN: AJMPK4740J) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. V.K. SABHARWAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. H.G. SEMA, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII, NEW D ELHI DATED 1.1.2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT ADDITION MADE OF RS. 15 ,00,237/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE LAW. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF SKILLED AND UNSKILLED INDUSTR IAL LABOUR AND SECURITY SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE WAS A PROPRIETOR O F FOUR CONCERNS. AO OBSERVED THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE TDS CERTIFICA TES AS ENCLOSED ITA NO. 1664/DEL/2010 2 WITH THE RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RECEI PT SHOWN CORRESPONDING TO THESE CERTIFICATES, IT WAS REVEALE D THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF RS. 15,00,237/-. ON QUERY IN THIS RE GARD ASSESSEE FURNISHED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. HOWEVER, THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE RECONCILIATION OF HIS CONTENTION. HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE AS TO HOW THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 15, 00,237/- HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE EXPENSES OF HIS BUSINESS. AC CORDINGLY, THE AO ADDED THE AFORESAID SUM TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. 4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE SUBSEQU ENT REMAND PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE AOS ORDER . 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE NOTE THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THE A SSESSEES EXPLANATION BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUPPORTED THE EXPLANATION WITH COGENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION WITH COGENT EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT PRODUCING THE COGENT EVIDENCE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REMIT THE I SSUE TO THE FILE OF ITA NO. 1664/DEL/2010 3 THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE CASE AFRESH, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/3/2014. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [R.P. TOLANI R.P. TOLANI R.P. TOLANI R.P. TOLANI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 14/3/2014 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 1664/DEL/2010 4