Shri Bharat Hassomal Assudani, Pune V. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2069/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9457 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.2069/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI BHARAT HASSOMAL ASSUDANI, 97/2, T BLOCK, MIDC, BHOSARI, PUNE 411026. PAN : AANPA3597M. . / APPELLANT V/S ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 8, PUNE. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED) REVENUE BY : SHRI MUKESH JHA. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) V, PUNE DT. 25.09.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN HR (HOT ROLLED) AND CR (COLD ROLLED) STEEL. ASSESSEE ELECTRO NICALLY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2007-08 ON 29.02.2008 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.58,72,470/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY AND / DATE OF HEARING : 14.12.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.01.2018 2 THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) VIDE O RDER DATED 29.12.2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.90,52,895/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.25.09.2014 (IN APPE AL NO.PN/CIT(A)-V/ADDL.CIT, RG.8/175/09-10) GRANTED PARTIAL RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LA W IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.27,40,973/- APPLYING SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT, 1961. SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON PERU SING THE AUDIT REPORT AND OTHER DETAILS, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSE E HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS AGGREGATING TO RS.27,40,973/- AND IT APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS CURRENT LIABILITIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ADVAN CES WERE RECEIVED AND ITS DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE WAS FROM SCRAP DEALERS FOR PURCHASE OF SCRAP. T HE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YS 200 6-07 AND 2007- 08 SHOWED NO SALE OF SCRAP BY ASSESEE, AO WAS OF THE V IEW THAT THERE CANNOT BE ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF SCRAP BECAUSE NO SCR AP WAS GENERATED DURING THE COURSE OF TRADING ACTIVITY AND WHATEVER SCRAP THAT WAS GENERATED DURING THE PICKLING AND SHEARING ACTIVITIES WERE THE PROPERTIES OF THE PARTIES FOR WHOM THE WORK WAS CARRIED OUT. HE FUR THER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE PAN NUMBERS, COMPLETE ADDRE SS OF THE PARTIES AND THAT NO SEPARATE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF SCRA P WERE FURNISHED 3 BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE ADVANCE OF RS.27,40,973/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER C ONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 8 . COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPIES OF MOU FOR SUPPLY OF SCRAP, EXTRACT OF LEDGER A/CS AND COPIES OF SALES BILLS RAISED AGAINS T THOSE ADVANCES. THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS DIFFICULT TO BE ACCE PTED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT ADVANCES WERE OUTSTANDING ON 31.03 . 2007 AGAINST WHICH SALES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO BE SHOWN IN DECEMB ER 2008. IT IS NOT A MERE COINCIDENCE THAT ALL THE SALES BILLS TO THESE PARTIES PERTAIN TO SINGLE MONTH I . E . DECEMBER 2008 . THE INVOICES ARE ALSO RAISED FOR CR AS WELL AS HR SHEETS AND NOT AGAINST SCRAP AS CL AIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, FURNISHING OF THESE BILLS BY THE APPELLANT ARE SIMPLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEP TED. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED IN CASH AS STA TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT AND NO PARTY WILL WAIT FOR ALMOST 20-22 MONTHS TO RECEIVE GOODS FOR SUCH ADVAN CES. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND ADDITION MADE AMOUNTING TO RS.27,40,973/- U/S 6 8 OF INCOME TAX ACT IS UPHELD AS THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PR OVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THUS, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 4. THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT IN THE PAST, HEARING WAS AD JOURNED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. ON TH E DATE OF PRESENT HEARING ONCE AGAIN NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE B UT HOWEVER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. WE THER EFORE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD DR. 5. BEFORE US, LD DR TOOK US THROUGH THE ORDER OF AO AN D SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. AS PER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE 4 MAJOR STRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WA S GIVEN TO HIM AND HENCE, THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.D.R., WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ADD ITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, ASSESSEE HA S NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDINGS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G. WE FIND THAT LD CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAD ADMITTED THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM AO AND THEREAFTER UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE MERITS OF ADDIT ION, LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ADVANCES WERE OUTSTANDING A S ON 31.03.2007, THE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED IN CASH, THE SALES WERE S HOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE SINGLE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2008 AN D THAT THE INVOICES WERE FOR CR AS WELL AS HR SHEETS AND NOT FOR SAL E OF SCRAP AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF LD CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE FIND N O REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 12 TH JANUARY, 2018. YAMINI 5 #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-V, PUNE. CIT-V, PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; $+,-/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ./0%1&2 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.