ITO, Sonepat V. M/s. B.S. Sangwan, Sonepat

ITA 1782/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3964 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI KANT GUPTA SENIOR
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1782/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ITO, WARD 1, VS. M/S. B.S. SANGWAN, SONEPAT. 7, HARRY PLAZA, SONEPAT. (PAN : AAEFB9414C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAVI KANT GUPTA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 11.01.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NEW DEL HI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILIN G THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.01. 2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK QUA TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.87,95,400 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE HON BLE ITAT, NEW DELHI HAS QUASHED THE REVISION ORDER PASSED U/S 263 R.W.S. 143 (3) VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.01.2015. ITA NO.1782/DEL/2015 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD DITION OF RS.3,63,000/-, RS.79,37,250/-, RS.2,60,150/- AND RS .2,65,000/-, PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.03.2 011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,63,000/- BEING THE V ALUE OF CONTRACT WAS NOT DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT; THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT DEDUCTED ANY TAX ON HIRE CHARGES ON VEHICLES AND MACHINE, PROFES SIONAL CHARGES, LEGAL FEES AND LOADING OF MATERIAL CLAIMED AS EXPENSES AN D AS SUCH, IS NOT ADMISSIBLE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT; THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO BROUGHT ON RECORD THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE A MOUNT OF RS.2,60,150/- CLAIMED AS SECURITY DEDUCTED BY THE D EPARTMENT FROM THE RUNNING BILLS; AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF N.K. SINGHAL FROM WHOM HE ALLEG ED TO HAVE TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.2,65,000/- RESPECTIVELY. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ACCEPTING T HE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL BY CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) . 4. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICES AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEEDED TO DE CIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. SENIOR DR AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. ITA NO.1782/DEL/2015 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 3. I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST W AS PASSED ON 16.12.2011 U/S 143 (3). THIS WAS A FRESH ASSESSMEN T FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 30.04.2007. THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS AS PER THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT DATED 18.03.2011. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE ITAT DELHI HAS, VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 21.01.2015, QUASHED THE REVISION ORDER PASSED U/S 263 R.W.S. 143 (3) FOR THE AY 2007-08. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) ON 16.12.2011 H AS NO LOCUS STANDI AND IS, HENCE, QUASHED. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT SINCE THE ORDER DA TED 18.03.2011 PASSED BY THE CONCERNED LD. COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE ACT STOOD QUASHED VIDE ORDER DATED 21.01.2015 PASSED BY THE T RIBUNAL, CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED BY AO DATED 16.12.2011 U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. HENCE WE FIND NO I LLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND CON SEQUENTLY, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018/TS ITA NO.1782/DEL/2015 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), ROHTAK. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.