Greysham & Co., Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1752/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5051 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 43B; 68; 144

Judgement Text

1 ITA.NO.1752/DEL./2016 GREYSHAM & CO., DELHI. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1752/DEL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 GREYSHAM & CO., 1/1 ROOP NAGAR, DELHI 110 007. PAN AAAFG2709A VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI SURESH GUPTA, C.A. FOR REVENUE : SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.08.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI, DATED 21 ST JANUARY, 2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-2008 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW WITHOUT THE APPELLANT BEING ALLOWED SUFF I CIENT OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCES I N SUPPORT OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMENT/APPEAL PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT APPREC I ATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN UNABLE TO FURNISH THE S AME DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT WITHIN ITS CONTROL . 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONF IR MING THE ADDITION OF RS . 23 , 46 , 828/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE CRED IT ORS REMA I NING UNVER I FIED DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES 2 ITA.NO.1752/DEL./2016 GREYSHAM & CO., DELHI. BEYOND THE CONTRO L OF THE APPE L LAN T , A FACT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 3. THE ADDITION OF RS.19,20,955/- U/S. 43B FOR UNPAID FEES AND T A X ES NEE D B E SET ASIDE AS TH E APP E L L A N T WAS PREVENTED FROM FURNISHING THE NECESSA RY E V I D ENCES BY THE C I R CUM S T A N CE S B E Y O N D I T S CO N T R O L . 4. ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT ( A ) HAS ERRED IN SUSTA I N I NG T H E ADDITION OF RS.42,88,150/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT FOR INABILITY TO SUBSTANT I ATE THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT OF THE PARTNER IN THE APPELLANT FIRM. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD C IT ( A ) HAS E R RED IN CONFIRMING THE D I SALLOWANCE OF CLA I M OF THE DEDUCTION OF THE PROF I T OF RS.25,63,714/- O N THE SALE OF FIXED ASSETS DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN ON THE ABOVE TRANSACTION IS SEPARATELY SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT EARLIER THE A.O. PASSED EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2009 COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,88,04,200. THE MATTE R ULTIMATELY TRAVELLED TO ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN ITA.NO.5634/DEL./ 2011 AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SET ASIDE THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFRESH BY AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSE SSEE VIDE ORDER 3 ITA.NO.1752/DEL./2016 GREYSHAM & CO., DELHI. DATED 31 ST OCTOBER, 2012. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DIRECTED THAT WE HOPE THE ASSESSEE WILL COOPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A.O. AS IT HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE LEARNED A.R. ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY TAKE-UP THE MATTER AFRESH. TH E A.O. ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM APPEARED BEFORE A.O. AND ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TIME TO TIME AND HE HAS SHOWN HIS INABI LITY TO PRODUCE THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO LOCK-OU T HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ANYTHING. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF RAILWAY PARTS DURI NG ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE A.O. FOUND THAT S UNDRY CREDITORS HAVE INCREASED BY RS.23,46,828 FOR WHICH NO DETAILS AND EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y EXPLANATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, A.O. MADE THE ADDITI ON OF RS.23,46,828. FURTHER, ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT OF RS.19,20,955 WHICH ARE DUT IES AND TAXES PAYABLE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2007. THE A.O. THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE I.T. ACT OF RS.19 ,20,955. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET THAT T HERE IS AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CAPITAL OF SHRI MOHAN SI NGH 4 ITA.NO.1752/DEL./2016 GREYSHAM & CO., DELHI. AMOUNTING TO RS.42,88,150 BUT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENC E HAVE BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, IT WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDITION OF RS .42,88,150 WAS MADE. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED FROM THE SCHEDULE OF F IXED ASSETS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAS SOLD OFFICE PREMISES AND BUILDING AT RS.35,90,000 ON WHI CH CAPITAL GAINS ARISE WHICH WAS COMPUTED AND AFTER GIVING BEN EFIT OF COST OF ACQUISITION, TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 25,63,714. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THESE ADDITIONS BEFORE LD. CIT( A). LD. CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL, DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE CONFIRMING ALL THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I DO N OT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE MERELY CONTENDED THAT BALANCE SHEET IS AVA ILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MATTER MAY B E REMANDED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT E ARLIER WHEN THE TRIBUNAL REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E A.O. FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFRESH, THE TRIBUNAL N OTED IN THE ORDER THAT WE HOPE THE ASSESSEE WILL COOPERATE IN THE PROCEED INGS BEFORE A.O. AS IT HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESS EES COUNSEL 5 ITA.NO.1752/DEL./2016 GREYSHAM & CO., DELHI. BEFORE THEM. THE HOPE OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY NOT COOPERATING BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING BEFORE THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW AND WHEN THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HE HAS SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PR ODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL FOR FINALISATION OF THE ASSESS MENT. MERE PRODUCTION OF BALANCE SHEET IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DE LETE THE ADDITIONS. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT MAKE ANY REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES A ND NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN RESPECT OF ANY OF TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES OR MAT ERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL SO RAISED ABOVE. H OWEVER, ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO ANYTHING IN THE MATTER. THUS, THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO POINT-OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THUS REJECTED. NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLE D FOR IN THE MATTER. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6 ITA.NO.1752/DEL./2016 GREYSHAM & CO., DELHI. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 23 RD AUGUST, 2017 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE // ASST. REGISTRAR // ITAT : DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.