The ITO, Ward-1(3), Surat V. Megha Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd., Surat

ITA 1857/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9977 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHUBNESH KULSHRESTHA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D. C. AGRAWAL , AM) ITA NO.1857/AHD/2010 A.Y.: 2007-08 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), ROOM NO.13, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS M/S. MEGHA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT PVT. LTD., 63-66 MAHENDRA PARK SOCIETY, PUNA KUMBHARIYA ROAD, SURAT PA NO. AACCM 7525 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI BHUBNESH KULSHRESTHA, DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI HARDIK VORA, AR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, SURAT DA TED 25-03-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,56,250/- U/S 68 OF T HE IT ACT. 2. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER STATED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR GOODS OF RS.14,56,250/- IN THE NAMES OF SHREE VIKRAM CONSTRUCTION CO., SHREEJI EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENTS AND MANALI ENTERPRISE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THES E THREE PARTIES ARE OLD PARTIES AND BALANCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE EARLIER YEAR I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. NO TRANSACTION HAS BEEN MAD E DURING THE YEAR WITH THESE PARTIES. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT M ONEY RECEIVED FROM SHREE VIKRAM CONSTRUCTION CO. WAS FOR THE PURPOSE O F TENDER AND THE SAME IS OUTSTANDING FROM THE LAST YEAR WHICH WAS PA ID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE LEDG ER ACCOUNT TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE GAVE ADDRESS OF THIS PARTY. BUT T HE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 133(6) OF THE IT ACT RETURNED UNSERVED. IN R ESPECT OF SHREEJI EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENTS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT T HIS BALANCE WAS ALSO ITA NO.1857/AHD/2010 ITO- 1(3), SURAT VS M/S. MEGHA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJE CT PVT. LTD. 2 OUTSTANDING IN THE LAST YEAR AND IT HAS REPAID IN T HE NEST YEAR I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 133(6) OF THE IT ACT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BACK. IN THE CASE OF M/S. MANALI ENTERPRISE THIS WAS ALSO OUTSTANDING BALANCE FROM THE LAST YEAR AND IN THIS CASE ALSO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE IT A CT HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BACK. NO REPLY HAS BEEN FILED IN THESE CAS ES. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THESE CREDITORS AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE THREE CREDITS ARE OLD CREDITS WHERE BALANCES ARE COMING F ROM THE LAST YEAR AND NO TRANSACTION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT TWO OF THE PARTIES RE CEIVED NOTICE AND THAT OUTSTANDING BALANCES HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPAID IN SU BSEQUENT YEAR. IT WAS, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THE AO ADMITTE D THAT THESE ARE THE BALANCES COMING UP FROM THE EARLIER YEAR, THEREFORE , NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE AND FURTHER NO ADDITION U/S 41 (1) OF THE IT A CT COULD BE MADE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CESSATION OF LIABILITY IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE BALANCES OF THE THREE PARTIES WERE COMI NG UP FROM THE EARLIER YEARS, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 3. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. SINCE THE CREDIT BALANCES WERE COMING UP FROM THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPU TED BY THE AO ON EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO AD DITION COULD BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER A PPEAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES TO SHOW THAT BALANCES WERE APPEARING FROM THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAVE BE EN PAID IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE AO CANNOT SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ITA NO.1857/AHD/2010 ITO- 1(3), SURAT VS M/S. MEGHA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJE CT PVT. LTD. 3 PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. SINCE, NO LOA N HAS BEEN OBTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND NO TRANSACT ION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT AND THE BALANCES ARE APPEARING FROM THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS NOT MERIT . THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-08-2010 SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 31-08-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD