M/s Verma Service Station, Firozabad V. A.C.I.T., Range-5, Firozabad

ITA 189/AGR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94122 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K AGARWAL; RAHUL AGARWAL ADV RESPONDE
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SH RI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRES ID ENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 189/AGRA/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 VERMA SERVICE STATION, VS. A.C.I.T., RANGE - 5, BYE PASS ROAD, FIR OZABAD. FIROZABAD. (PAN : AAAFV 6442 K) APPELLANT BY : SH. R.K. AGARWAL, ADV. & SH. RAHUL AGARWAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. BELU SINHA, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.08.2015 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCO UNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) - II, AGRA DATED 28.03.2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N MAKING ADDITION OF RS.96,69,228/ - TO THE DECLARED INCOME SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF CONSENT GIVEN BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE / CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE APPELLANT. THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE/CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS BEYOND THE TERMS OF HIS AUTHORIZATION. 2. BECAUSE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, AGRA HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BEFORE HIM. TH E LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CONSENT OF ITA NO.189/AGRA/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 2 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AUTHORITY FOR MAKING SURRENDER OF HUGE AMOUNT THAT TOO WITHOUT SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF THE APPELLANT. 3. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.92,00,000/ - IN RESPECT OF DEPOSIT MADE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF PARTNER WHILE EXAMINING THE CASE OF THE FIRM (APPELLANT) 4. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, BOTH IN LAW AND ON ACTS IN SUSTAINING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.2,85,000/ - IN RESPECT OF INTEREST FREE LOAN AND ADVANCES TO THE RELATIVES. 5. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, BOTH IN LAW AND ON ACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,83,248/ - BEING THE INTEREST DISALLOWED OUT OF TOTA L INTEREST CLAIMED. 6. BECAUSE THE ORDER IS AGAINST THE LAW & FACTS. 2. IN THIS CASE, RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 WAS FILED ON 29.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,86,2 70 / - . SUBSEQUENTLY , THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS A ND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1, 01, 55,498/ - . IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING ADDITIONS, THE A.O. DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.92,00,000/ - INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND STATED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE APPELLANT CONCEDED FOR THE ADDITION. THE A.O. ALSO DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.2,85,984/ - AND RS.1,8 3 ,248/ - FOR WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) - I I, AGR A WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY HOLDING THAT NO APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE SINCE THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON THE CONFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE , THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.189/AGRA/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 3 3. THE SR. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION C AN BE MADE BASED ON CONFESSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE PURELY BASED ON FACTS OF THE CASE A ND THE CONFESSION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VALID IN LAW , ESPECIALLY ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LD. SR. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S TATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED AS INDIVIDU AL WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE PURELY BASED ON THE CON F ESSION MADE BY THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT INVESTIGATING TO THE FACTS OF THE CA SE. THEREFORE , IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF THE CASE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT, AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA R D TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 .08.2015 ) SD / - SD/ - ( G.C. GUPTA ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) VICE PRESIDENT ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 1 2 TH AUGUST , 201 5 ITA NO.189/AGRA/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 4 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA