M/s Dashmesh Solvex Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh V. DCIT, Mohali

ITA 186/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5450 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: B BENCH: CH ANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWL A, JM ITA NO. 186/CHANDI/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S DASHMESH SOLVEX PVT LTD V D.C.I.T. CIRCLE (1 ), MOHALI CHANDIGARH ROAD VILLAGE GHARUAN,CHANDIGARH PAN: AACCD 2546 F APPELLANT BY: SHRI VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY: SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 3.9.2010, ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF INCOME-TAX A CT BY THE LD. CIT(A) CHANDIGARH IN APPEAL NO. 551/08-09 DATED 3.9.2010 I S CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) GRAVELLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 6,7 0,000/- MADE BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1), MOHALI ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSEC URED LOAN FROM SHRI GURDEV SINGH. 3 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABODE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 4 ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE TAKEN UP AT THE TIM E OF HEARING WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL, CHANDIGARH. 2. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2006 RETURNING TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 33,36,304/-. AFTER PROCESSING, THE RETU RN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 5,50,000/- FROM SMT. HARBANS KAUR AND FURTHER A SUM OF RS. 6,70,000/- FROM SHRI GURDEV SINGH AS LOAN DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. BOTH THE AFORESAID CREDITORS ARE ALSO DIRECTORS IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE INCLUDING CONFIRMATION OF THE AFORESAID CREDITORS. THEY WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE AO AND RESULTANTLY ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ADDITION, THE ASSESSE E FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,50,000/- BEING UNSECURED LOAN GIVEN BY SMT. HARBANS KAUR AND CONFIRMED THE REMAINING ADDITION I.E. RS. 6,70,000/- BEING LOAN GIVEN BY SH RI GURDEV SINGH. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL, THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHRI GURDEV SINGH HAD INCOME NOT ONLY FROM HIS PENSION BUT ALSO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES NAMELY RENTAL INCOME. ACCORDING TO T HE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT 2 DASHMESH SOLVEX PVT LTD V. DCIT, MOHALI 186/CHANDI/2011 TAKE NOTE OF THE AFORESAID FACT AND THEREFORE THE O RDER PASSED BY HER NEEDS CORRECTION. ON BEING ASKED BY THE BENCH AS TO WHET HER ALL THE FACTS WERE PROPERLY PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ALL THE PAPERS TO ITS EARLIER CO UNSEL BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE SAME IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER CAN BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO VERIFY THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN REPLY, THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHRI GURDEV SINGH DERIVES INCOME NOT ONLY FROM PENSION BUT ALSO FROM RENTAL INCOME. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT HE MAINTAINS A BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL NAME AND ALSO IN JOINT NA ME WITH HIS WIFE, SMT. HARBANS KAUR AND CHILDLREN. PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THE JOINT ACCOUNT IN THE BANK IS MAINTAINED BY SMT. HARBANS KAUR TOGE THER WITH OTHERS INCLUDING HER CHILDREN. IT IS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ALL THE PAPERS TO HIS EARLIER COUNSEL WHO WAS EXPEC TED TO PLACE THEM SAME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE SOME IN T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO FILE APPEAL TH EM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE PARTIES, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RE STORED TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL B E GIVEN TO BOTH THE PARTIES. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13TH MAY 2011 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIVA STAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER CHANDIGARH: THE 13TH MAY 2011 SURESH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT, M/S DASHMESH SOLVEX PVT LTD. 2. THE RESPONDENT, D.C.I.T. CIRCLE (1), MOHALI 3. THE CIT(A), CHANDIGARH 4. THE LD. CIT, CHANDIGARH 5. THE D.R, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH.