M/s. Goojar Mal Ganpat Rai (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1730/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1768 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Assessee Lawyers: T R TALWAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

1 ITA 1730/DEL/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1730/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YRS: 2006-07 M/S GOOJAR MAL GANPAT RAI (P) LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX O FFICER, J-3, BLOCK B-1, MOHAN CO-OP. WARD 12(2), NEW DEL HI. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044. PAN: AAACG 0227 G ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.R. TALWAR ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. DAM KANUNJNA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 13/11/2015. DATE OF ORDER : 30/11/2015. O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2014, PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-VI, NEW DELHI, IN APPEAL NO. 116/12-13 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES T O THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,75,164/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY, THE SURVEY TEAM FOUND EXCESS INVENTORY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7,75,1 64/-, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AS VALUE OF ITEMS, RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPLAY FROM ITS PRINCIPAL 2 ITA 1730/DEL/2014 M/S COIMA INDIA PVT. LTD. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,75,164/-. WHEN THE M ATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. I HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONS IDERED THE SAME, ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE ME. I NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DETA ILS OF RS. 7,75,164/-, TAKEN BY THE REVENUE TO BE THE EXCESS STOCK. I NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEES EXPLANATION TO THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 20-5-2006 THAT ALL THESE ITEM S, WHICH WERE TAKEN TO BE EXCESS BY THE SURVEY TEAM, RELATED TO THE DISPLAY ITEMS BE ING SUPPLIED BY M/S COIMA INDIA PVT. LTD. THE ITEMS IN NUMBER ARE 21. THE ASS ESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAIL AS WELL AS THE CHALLAN NUMBER AND THE QUANTITY, HOW TH ESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SENT BY ASSESSEE AND HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED THESE IT EMS TO M/S COIMA INDIA PVT. LTD. THE COPY OF THE CHALLAN OF ITEMS, WHICH WERE FOR DISPLAY, ARE ALSO AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS. 9 TO 15 OF THE PB. FROM THESE CHALLAN ITEMS, THE SUMMARY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 4, IT IS APPARENT THAT THESE ITEM S WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S COIMA INDIA PVT. LTD. FOR DISPLAY PURPOSE AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S COIMA INDIA PVT. LT D. THE ASSESSEE HAD REITERATED THESE FACTS TO THE AO BUT THE AO, INSTEAD OF VERIFY ING THE FACT, DID NOT BELIEVE THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE COPY OF THE CHALL AN IT IS APPARENT AS TO WHICH OF THE ITEMS WERE FOR DISPLAY. SINCE THE ITEMS, WHIC H WERE ON DISPLAY, DID NOT BELONG 3 ITA 1730/DEL/2014 TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE INVENTORY OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A ) AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2015. SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30/11/2015. *MP* COPY OF ORDER TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.