Shri Kamlesh Raymalji Chippa, Anand V. ITO, Ward-2, Anand

ITA 1834/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3863 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 250; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI KAMLESH RAYMALJI CHIPPA C/O ALANKAR TUBES & METALS, 160, GIDC ESTATE, VITHAL UDYOG NAGAR, ANAND-388121 PAN: ABNPC1451H (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD-2, ANAND (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR, SR. D.R . ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.N. DIVETIA, A.R . DATE OF HEARING : 05-10-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-10-20 21 /ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2014-15, ARISES FRO M ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-4, VADODARA DATED 01-06-2018, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 PASSED ON 1-6-20 18 BY CIT(A)-4 BARODA UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,31,889/- IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS BOGUS MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NO. 1834/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 I.T.A NO. 1834/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE NO SHRI KAMLESH RAYMALJI CHIPPA VS. ITO 2 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD REMAINED SILENT AND NOT OFFERED ANY PLAUSIBLE R EPLY IN ANY PROCEEDINGS. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN' CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,31,689/- IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS BOG US. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.1,31,689/- IN RESPEC T OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS BOGUS. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 1,31,689/- UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. GROUND NOS. 1.1 AND 1.2 ARE NOT PRESSED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE SAME STAND DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NOS. 2.1 & 2.2 ARE PERTAINED TO THE SO LITARY ISSUE OF CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,31,689/- IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS BOGUS. 5. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME DEC LARING INCOME OF RS. 7,41,644/- FILED ON 18 TH SEP, 2014. THE CASE WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS IS SUED ON 18 TH SEP, 2015. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ON VERIFICATION FRO M THE CONTRA ACCOUNTS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED DIFF ERENCES IN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,01,082/-. THEREFO RE, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. OUT OF THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,3 1,689/- WAS PERTAINED TO SAMITH STEEL WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT DUE TO POSTING ERROR THE PAYMENT WA S SHOWN AS MADE TO S. KUMAR ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT OF RECONCILIATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A NO. 1834/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE NO SHRI KAMLESH RAYMALJI CHIPPA VS. ITO 3 6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ERROR WAS FULLY EXPLAINED IN RESPECT OF DIFFERE NCE OF RS. 1,31,689/- WHICH WAS ARISED BECAUSE OF POSTING ERROR. IN THIS REG ARD, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS PLACED THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT I.E. LEDGER ACCOUNT OF S. KUMAR ENTERPRISES, SMITH STEEL, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, STATEMENT IN SUP PORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITOR BALANCE WAS PROPERLY RECONCILED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MAD E ADDITION OF RS. 1,31,689/- BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES IN THE CONTRA-ACC OUNT. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED IN HIS SUBMISSI ON WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DIFFERENCE IN RESPECT OF M/S. SMITH STEEL OF RS. 1,31,689/- WAS O N ACCOUNT OF WRONG POSTING MADE IN THE ACCOUNT OF S. KUMAR ENTERPRISES . IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,31,689/- MADE TO SMITH STEEL B Y CHEQUE NO. 0006 OF HDFC BANK LTD. ON 16 TH AUGUST, 2013 WAS WRONGLY POSTED IN THE ACCOUNT OF S. KUMAR ENTERPRISES BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF S. KUMAR ENTERPRISES ON PAGE NO. 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE COPY OF BAN K STATEMENT ON THE PAGE NO. 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE MAKING WRON G POSTING INADVERTENTLY. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACT S AND THE MATERIAL PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND MENTIONED IN THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WE OBSERVED THAT LD. LD . CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE I.T.A NO. 1834/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE NO SHRI KAMLESH RAYMALJI CHIPPA VS. ITO 4 MATERIAL FACT OF THE CASE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN A GENERAL MANNER. THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE AFORESAID INFIR MITY IN THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME BY SPEAKING ORDER AFTER SPECIFI CALLY CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND DETAIL FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. ACCORDI NGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-10-2021 SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 07/10/2021 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,