Mr. Mohammed Shafeeq Ur Rehman , Hassan V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Hassan

ITA 1925/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0698 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R ANITHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1925/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 MOHAMMED SHAFEEQ UR REHMAN, M/S. MAHARASHTRA FEEDS & GENERAL COMMODITIES, P B NO.1, B KATEHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, B.M. ROAD, DAIRY CIRCLE, HASSAN 573 201. PAN: A E KPR 0991P VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, HASSAN. APP ELLANT RESPONDENT APP ELLANT BY : SMT. R. ANITHA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJENDRA CHANDEKAR, JT.CIT(D R)(ITAT), BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 23 .0 8 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.10 . 2018 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), MYSURU RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF ABOUT 19 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE US THAT THE ERSTWHILE CA, SHRI YEDUNANDAN, W HO APPEARED BEFORE THE AO FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT DID NOT REPRESENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. THE ERSTWHILE CA INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WOULD TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BUT LATER ON INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO ITA NO. 1925/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 5 HANDLE THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTER THE A SSESSEE APPROACHED THE PRESENT CA TO FILE THE APPEAL. IN THE MEANTIME , THERE OCCURRED A DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN PREFERRING THE PRESENT APPEAL. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NOT WILFUL OR WANTON, BUT D UE TO BONAFIDE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE. I THEREFORE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AS FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS CONCERNED, THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IS WITH REGARD TO AN ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS.21,86,718 MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CRE DITORS WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CITA. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE DERIVES INCOM E BY TRADING IN POULTRY FEEDS AND GENERAL COMMODITIES. IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO CALLED FOR DETAILS OF SUNDRY CR EDITORS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET TOTALLING RS.2,97,08,736. THE ASSESS EE FURNISHED DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE AO ON ENQUIRY FROM SUNDRY CR EDITORS NOTICED VARIATION IN THE AMOUNTS DUE AS STATED BY SUNDRY CR EDITORS AND AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE VARIATIO N WAS WITH REFERENCE TO 19 CREDITORS AND DETAILS IN THIS REGARD WERE AS FOL LOWS:- SL. NO. NAME & ADDRESS DIFFERENCE 1. BHADRA AGENCIES 11280 2. BHUVANA AGENCIES 35216 3. CARE CURE 24600 4. C & M FANNING L TD., KOLHAPUR 263768 5. GAJANANA ENTERPRISES 21350 6. GLOBE COTTON CORPORATION 176894 7 KAVI AGENCIES 62700 ITA NO. 1925/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 5 8 KEDARNATH SAJJAN KUMAR 590435 9. MADHAV FEEDS & FATS LTD. 449474 10 MOHAN KUMAR (MAIZE) 89638 11. OMKARESHWAR SOLVEX PVT. LTD. 87256 12. RAJ PHA RMA PVT. 21876 13. R.B TRADERS 50000 14. SHIVA PARVATHI POULTRY FARM 50000 15. SHYAMKALA AGRO 27300 16. SIDDHI VET CHEM 72831 17. SIDDON BIOTECH 17475 18. VENKYS INDIA LTD. 44468 19.. VAISHNAVI CHIKS 90237 TOTAL DIFFERENCE 2186798 5. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPL AIN THE DIFFERENCE. THEREFORE, THE AO ADDED THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAI NST THE ORDER OF AO. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.9.2017. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE ME THAT IT WAS THE FIRST DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY SPEED POST, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. HE THEREFORE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTE AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. HE FOUND NO GROUNDS TO INTERFERE IN THE OR DER OF AO AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 1925/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 5 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE M E THAT ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED BY THE CITA AND IT HAS ALR EADY BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEE FILED IN SUPPORT OF APPLI CATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THAT THE ERSTWHILE CA DID NOT ATTEND THE PROC EEDINGS BEFORE THE CITA. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE CREDITORS IN WHOSE ACCOUNT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE, WERE PAID BY CHEQUES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE THE DISCREPANCY BETWE EN THE SUMS SHOWN AS PAYABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN THE BOOKS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE SHOULD B E DELETED. 9. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CITA. 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD BEFORE THE CITA. THERE WAS ONLY ONE HEARING BEFORE THE CITA AND THAT HEARING WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY THE ERSTWHILE CA OF ASSESSEE. IN TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CITA AND REMAND FOR FRESH CONSID ERATION BY THE CITA THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.21,86,798, AFTER AFFORDING ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 11. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSE E IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 3 RD OCTOBER, 2018. / D ESAI S MURTHY / ITA NO. 1925/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 5 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.