Vijay Mittal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 182/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 18220114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVI SHARAN SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKALP ANIL SHARMA
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH SMC SMC SMC SMC : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 182/DEL/2014 182/DEL/2014 182/DEL/2014 182/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2003 2003 2003 2003 - -- - 04 0404 04 SHRI VIJAY MITTAL, SHRI VIJAY MITTAL, SHRI VIJAY MITTAL, SHRI VIJAY MITTAL, PROP. M/S DISCO ENTERPRISES, PROP. M/S DISCO ENTERPRISES, PROP. M/S DISCO ENTERPRISES, PROP. M/S DISCO ENTERPRISES, Y YY Y- -- -203, LOHA MANDI, 203, LOHA MANDI, 203, LOHA MANDI, 203, LOHA MANDI, NARAINA, NARAINA, NARAINA, NARAINA, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN : AFG PAN : AFG PAN : AFG PAN : AFGPM6752E. PM6752E. PM6752E. PM6752E. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -27(1), 27(1), 27(1), 27(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANKALP ANIL SHARMA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEVI SHARAN SINGH, SR.DR. DATE OF HEARING : 16.07.2015 16.07.2015 16.07.2015 16.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.08.2015 03.08.2015 03.08.2015 03.08.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EF FECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS GROUND NO.2, WHICH I S REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,12,598/- U/S 68 OF TH E I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ENTRY PROVIDER MAINTAINED WITH RATNAKAR BANK LTD., KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHILE CONFIRMING TH E ITA-182/DEL/2014 2 ADDITION HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO M ATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ANY SUCH ENTRY AS NO ALLEGED ENTRY WAS FOUND IN ANY OF THE BAN K ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OF `6, 12,598/- AND, THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF ADDING THE SAME U/S 68 OF T HE ACT IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND MAY BE DELETED. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2003 WITH THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED WHEREIN N O SUCH ENTRY APPEARS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT POR TION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE BANK AND THE BANK PEOPLE WERE NOT COOPERATIVE WITH THE DEPARTMEN T AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT GET THE RELEVANT INFORMATION. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERU SED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) A ND ALSO THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. I FIND THAT NO SUC H ENTRY OF `6,12,598/- APPEARS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29 TH MARCH, 2003 OR ON ANY OTHER DATE DURING THE WHOLE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTE D THAT THE BANK WAS NOT COOPERATIVE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, IT COULD NO T BE A VALID GROUND TO FASTEN THE LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE. THE REV ENUE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS I N FACT CREDITED THIS AMOUNT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT OR ACCOUNT B OOKS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ITA-182/DEL/2014 3 ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PUT TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE AND, ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT NO CASE FOR ADDITION COULD BE MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE AND THE ADDITION MADE IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND N O.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD AUGUST, 2015. SD/- (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI VIJAY MITTAL, SHRI VIJAY MITTAL, SHRI VIJAY MITTAL, SHRI VIJAY MITTAL, PROP. M/S DISCO PROP. M/S DISCO PROP. M/S DISCO PROP. M/S DISCO ENTERPRISES, ENTERPRISES, ENTERPRISES, ENTERPRISES, Y YY Y- -- -203, LOHA MANDI, NARAINA, NEW DELHI. 203, LOHA MANDI, NARAINA, NEW DELHI. 203, LOHA MANDI, NARAINA, NEW DELHI. 203, LOHA MANDI, NARAINA, NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- -- -27(1), 27(1), 27(1), 27(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR