The ITO, Ward, 3(3), Surat V. Shri Giriraj Hukamchand Godiani (HUF), Surat

ITA 1695/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9145 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1695 A HD 2013 & CO NO.132 AHD 2016 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO. 1695 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 9 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(3), SURAT. .. .APPELLANT VS. GIRIRAJ HUKM I CHAND GODI ANI (HUF) .. .. . RESPONDENT 603, KRISHNA COMPLEX, BHATTAR ROAD, SURAT 395 007. [PAN: A ACHG 5082 N ] C.O. NO. 132 /AHD/201 6 (IN ITA NO. 1695 /AHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 GIRIRAJ HUKM I CHAND GODIANI (HUF) .. .. . APPELLANT 603, KRISHNA COMPLEX, BHATTAR ROAD, SURAT 395 007. [PAN: A ACHG 5082 N ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(3), SURAT. ..... .. . RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: KAILASH DAN RATNOO , FOR THE REVENUE NONE , FOR THE ASSESSEE D ATE OF CONC LUDING THE HEARING : 28 .02. 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 28 . 0 2 .2017 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 1 8 TH MARCH 201 3 , IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 . ITA NO. 1695 A HD 2013 & CO NO.132 AHD 2016 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. GRIEVANCE S OF THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOWS : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - IV, SURAT HAS ERRED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,50,108/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS U/S. 68 INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT DESPITE BEING GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY GENUINE NE SS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO EXCEPT IN THREE CASES ONLY . 2 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,64,034/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF TRADING EXPENSES AFTER REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF T HE IT ACT TO RS.5,12,807/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO SUBMIT ANY FRESH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE GENUINE AND WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. 3. O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 4. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) M AY BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING O FFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN VOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . IN VIEW OF THIS UNDISPUTED FACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS I N LAW, T HE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,12,807/ - OUT OF CUTTING EXPENSES; DYEING JOB CHARGES; EMBROIDERY EXPENSES AND PACKING MATERIAL, ALL BEING TRADING EXPENSES AND THE G.P. RATIO OF THE APPEL LANT HAS BEEN BETTER THAN LAST YEAR. 2. THAT O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED I N SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.21,786/ - , BEING 20% OF VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES WERE WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ITA NO. 1695 A HD 2013 & CO NO.132 AHD 2016 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. AS THE APPEAL ITSELF IS HELD TO BE NON - MAINTAINABLE, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CROSS OBJECTION CEASES TO HOLD GOOD IN LAW. THE CROSS OBJEC TION IS, THEREFORE, ALSO DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 . SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2017 . PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER AS SISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD