Suresh Singhal, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1826/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6506 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEDOBINA CHAUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: BL GUPTA
• Section: 145; 144; 2

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1 826 /DEL./201 5 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SM C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMB E R ITA NO. 1826 /DEL./201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 11 SURESH SINGHAL FLAT NO. 48, DIPINI APTS, PITAMPURA, DELHI VS. ITO WARD - 38(3) , CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A OYPS6771A) ASSESSEE BY: SH. B.L. GUPTA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHARI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 07 / 0 3 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 9 / 0 3 /201 7 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - XXVIII, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 1 6 . 10 .201 4 FOR THE A.Y. 20 10 - 11 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S PAGE 2 OF 6 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS } ERRED IN APPLYING THE NET PROFIT OF THE PRECEDING YEAR TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE CURRENT YEAR. 3 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO INCOME FOR RS. 912363 ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN TURNOVER AS REFLECTED IN PROFIT AND LOSS A/C VIS A VIS THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN 26 AS WHICH INCLUDES VAT AS WELL. 4 . THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE T URNOVER DEPICTED IN P&L IS THE NET AMOUNT OF TURNOVER WITHOUT INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF VAT EVEN THOUGH ACCEPTING AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE ACTION OF AO IS THIS REGARD WAS UNJUSTIFIED. 5 . THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.880610 AN D 912363 INCORRECTLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE VARIOUS DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AND IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT COMPLIANCE IN RESPECT OF QUERIES RAISED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE PAGE 3 OF 6 ACT AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE PRECEDING YEAR @ 3.83% OF GROSS RECEIPTS AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 8,80,610/ - . 3. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING GROUNDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TURN OVER IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND AS PER FORM NO. 2 6 AS. THE DI FFERENCE FOUND WAS RS. 9,12,363/ - AND THE EXPLANATION WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS MADE . B EFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE COPY OF PURCHASE BILLS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASES AS WELL AS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE BILLS DID NOT SHOW ANY ENTRY IN THE LEDGER AND THE MODE OF PAYMENT AND ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE TRADING ADDITION AND ALSO HE CONFIRME D THE DIFFERENCE OF VAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE DIFFERENCE. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. DR THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR 65 DAYS. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CONDONATION PETITION FROM WHICH I FIND A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR LATE PAGE 4 OF 6 FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 5. AS REGARDS THE TRADING ADDITION IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER U/S 144 IS DATED 19.202013 WHEREAS AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS ON 25.2.2013. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN ADVANCE AND THERE WAS A MERE FORMALITY OF ASKING THE DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE . T HE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FACTS ON RECORD. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS A COMPLETE NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MAKE ANY ADDITION AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITIONS SO MADE AR E DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6. ON MERIT THE LD. CIT (A) ASKED FOR THE PURCHASE OF BILLS AND TRANSPORTATION BILLS WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ALLEGATION THAT THOSE BILLS DOES NOT SHOW THE LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER AND MODE OF PAYMENT IS AN EXERC ISE WHICH SPEAKS OF NON APPLICATION OF MIND, WHICH IN FACT IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED AND THEREFORE THIS ADDITION IS NOT CALLED PAGE 5 OF 6 FOR. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF VAT, THE BILLS WERE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHERE THE VAT AMOUNT COULD BE CAL CULATED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A) COULD MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE . T HEREFORE NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CALLED FOR. THEREFORE ON BOTH THE COUNTS THE ADDITION MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8 . P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 9 . 0 3 .201 7. S D / - ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMB E R DATED: 0 9 . 0 3 .2017 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) PAGE 6 OF 6 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 7 .0 3 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 8 .02.2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 9 .3.2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 9 .3.2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.