The ITO, Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad V. Himanshu Engg. Works, Ahmedabad

ITA 1846/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6848 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : B BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M. & HON' BLE SHRI N.S.SAINI, A.M . ) I.T.A. NO. 1846/AHD./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-1999 I.T.O., WARD-6(4), AHMEDABAD -VS- HIMANS HU ENGINEERING WORKS, ABAD (PAN: AABFH 2716F) (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR. D.R RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.F.JAIN O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 18.03.2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XI, AHM EDABAD ALLOWING RS.13,53,108/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1998-1999. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 254 ON 08.12 .2008 WHEREIN HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.13,53,108/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT BOTH THE ITEMS WERE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENT BECAUSE THE ITEMS SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE C ORRECT AND THE FINDING HAS BECOME FINAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE SAID CONTENTI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO MEET THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE HELD THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE BASED ON THE STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE B ANK. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION FOR THE DE TAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 2.1.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO. 1846-AHD-2009 2.1.4. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.13,5 3,108/- IS A PART OF CLOSING STOCK OF RS.56,73,583/- (RS.13,53,108 + RS.43,20,475/-) AND THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE DETAILS CULLED OUT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AUDITOR AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND. THEREFORE, T HE ADDITION DELETED BY THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD WAS SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, AS IT IS SEEN THAT THE PART ADDITION OF RS.13,53,108/- IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED UNDER THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT GUJARAT, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS WITHOUT VERIFYING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HENCE, THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE A.O. HAS TO BE DELETED. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE , SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.D.R. APPEARED AND CONTENDED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO MEET THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. D.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DI RECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND POINTED OUT THAT ADDITION OF RS.13,53,108/- WAS SET ASIDE TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE FACT THAT WHETHER THE ITEMS APPEARING UNDER THE NOMENCLA TURE OF TWO ITEMS EN9 FORGING AND REDUCTION GEAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PER STATEMENT F URNISHED TO THE BANK WERE THE SAME AS WERE APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT FURNISHED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER NOMENCLATURE OF M.S. FORGING AND M.S. FABRICATED GEAR BOXES. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DETAIL S GIVEN IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WHICH WAS ALREADY CONCLUDED AS UNACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME IN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT GROUNDS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI P.F.JAIN, APPEARING ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL N O.895 OF 2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-1999 IN REVENUES APPEAL, HELD THAT THE DETAIL S CULLED OUT FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AUDITORS AND NO DISCREPANCY IS FOUND. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THIS BASIS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS) BE UPHELD. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT TH E REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIALS WHICH SUGGEST THAT TWO ITEMS MENTIONED WE RE DIFFERENT AND NOT THE SAME. AT THE 3 ITA NO. 1846-AHD-2009 SAME TIME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT RELIANCE PLACED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEA LS) ON THE RELEVANT PORTION OF JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL CANNOT BE IGNORED. TO SUM UP, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN COGEN T REASON FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,53,108/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.0 4.2011. SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15/04/2011 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE 2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A.) CONCERNED, 4) CIT CONCERNED, 5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, I TAT, AHMEDABAD TALUKDAR/SR.P.S.