ACIT-2(1), RAIPUR (CG) V. M/S TIRATH SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, JAGDALPUR (CG)

ITA 194/BIL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0216 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 208; 22

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 194/ BLPR /2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR SMC BENCH, RAIPUR [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NO. : 194 / BLPR /201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S: 2007 - 08 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR . ............APPELLANT VS TIRATH SINGH MANMOHAN SI NGH ...........RESPONDENT LALBAGH, JAGDALPUR (C.G.) [PAN: AABFT 1495 C] APPEARANCES BY D K JAIN FOR THE APPELLANT R B DOSHI FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 22 /0 6 /16 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 16 / 0 9 /16 O R D E R BY WAY OF THIS AP PEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 27.08.201 2 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), RAIPUR (C.G.), IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , ON THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS : - 1. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 3, 08,251/ - M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I. TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. I.T.A. NO.: 194/ BLPR /2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 2 OF 4 2. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,35,325/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES FOR NON - MAINTENANCE OF VOUCHERS. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ER RONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2 . SO FAR AS FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE RS . 33,08,251 WHICH ARE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, RS . 27,40,000 ARE RECEIVED FROM THE P ARTNERS OF THE FIRM, NAMELY SHRI JAGTAR SINGH, SHRI JIETNDRA SINGH AND SHRI DEVENDRAJIT SINGH . IT IS WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT ONCE AN AMOUNT IS RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CREDIT GIVEN IN RESPECT OF THE SAME IS UNEXPLAINE D . THIS PROPOSITION HAS THE JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF HON BLE HIGH COURTS IN THE CASES OF CIT VS RAMESHWAR PRASAD SURESH PAL CHEEKA [(2007) 208 CTR 459 (P&H)], CIT VS JAISWAL MOTOR FINANCE [(1983) 147 ITR 706 (ALL)] AND CIT VS METACHEM INDUSTRIES [(2000) 145 IT R 160 (MP)]. AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE ARE NUMBER OF DECISIONS, BY RAIPUR DIVISION BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL AS WELL, HOLDING SO. THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS BASED ON THESE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS . 5,68,25 1, I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE EXISTENCE AND GENUINENESS OF THE LENDERS, SUCH AS PAN CARD DIVING LICENCE, RATION CARD, VOTER CARD, I.T.A. NO.: 194/ BLPR /2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 3 OF 4 CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ETC, AS ALSO AFFIDAVITS OF T HE LENDERS. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING BEFORE US HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC INFIRMITIES , IN THIS REGARD, IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE C IT(A). I, THEREFORE, SEE NO REASONS TO DISTURB THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND I APPROVE THE SAME. 3 . COMING TO THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED 20% EXPENSES, ON ADHOC BASIS, FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES OF RS . 21,76,626. THESE EXPENSES INCLUDED EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS . 14,77,767 IN RESPECT OF AUDIT FEES, BANK COMMISSION, INTEREST, PROFESSIONAL TAX AND DEPRECIATION ETC. THE A SSESSING OFFICER , IN THE REMAND REPORT, HAS ACCEPTED THIS POSITION. OBVIOUSLY, THERE CANNOT BE ANY OCCASION OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE, I N THE PRESENT CASE, IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSES. AS FOR THE REAMING AMOUNT, (I.E. 1,39,772 BEING 20% OF 21,76,626 - 14,77,767) LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS THAT IN ANY EVENT THE TRADING RESULTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE B ETTER VIS - - VIS THE TRADING RESULTS OF EARLIER TWO YEARS AND THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER ARE RATHER VAGUE AND OF SWEEPING GENERALIZATION. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES, I SEE NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), PARTICULA RLY I.T.A. NO.: 194/ BLPR /2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 4 OF 4 BEARING IN MIND SMALLNESS OF AMOUNTS, ON THIS ASPECT EITHER. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 TODAY ON 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 16 TH D AY OF SEPTEMBER , 2016 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGIST RAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD