ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Super Clothing Co., Delhi

ITA 2131/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 213120114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH 'SMC-2 ' NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRL P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 21311DE1L2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ITO, WARD 36(2), VS. M/S. SUPER CLOTHING CO., NEW DELHI D-254, NIRMAN VIHAR, DELHI-II0092 GIR I PAN:AATFS6041C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING 09.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :09.11.2015 ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- XXVII, NEW DELHI DATED 27.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: '1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FACT OF THE INSTANT CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE L. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,16,363 /- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRMED SUNDRY CREDITORS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.L,26,849/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRMED SUNDRY DEBTORS. ' 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 1, THE REFORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING LD. D.R. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF R S.11,16,3631- IS CONCERNED, I NOTED THAT THE A.O. ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT IN RESPEC T OF 5 PARTIES 1 CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION OR DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE CREDITORS IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE . IN MY OPINION, THE ?URDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE LIABILITY HAS CEASED OR REMITTED THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CLEAR CUT FINDIN G THAT THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.28, 17,1311- BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR AND THE LIABILITY REDUCED TO RS.LL, 16,363/- , THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LIABILITY GOE S CEASED PR RE,OTTED DURING THE YEAR. NO COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS BRBUGHT TO MY KN OWLEDGE WHICH MAY WARRANT ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). I ACCO RDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO.2 OF REV ENUE'S APPEAL. 5. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.L ,26,849/-. I NOTICED THAT THE A.O. NOTED THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN RE SPECT OF BALANCE SHEET SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONFIRMATION GIVE N BY THREE PARTIES FOR WHICH THERE WAS DEBIT BALANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.L ,26,8 491-. HE ACCORDINGLY, ADDED THE SAME. THE DEBIT BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS M ORE BY RS.L,26,849/-. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE LD. CIT(A), LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES MJS. BRIDGE ENTERPRISES PAID A SUM OF RS.30,257/- VIDE C HEQUE NO.30649 DATED 12.05.2008 AND SO FAR AS THE OTHER TWO PARTIES ARE CONCERNED AND BALANCE ,WAS WITH REGARD TO DEBIT NOTE RAISED BY THESE DEBTORS. IN MY OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ABOUT DELETIO N OF RS.L,26,849/-. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE DEBT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT A HIGHER FIGURE. A S PER THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, DEBT WILL ARISE ONLY WHEN SALES ARE MADE TO THE PAR TIES. THIS IMPLIES RECORDOMG OF SALES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE A.A. HAS ACCEPT ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE LIABILITY HAS BEEN SHOWN AT A HIGHER FIGURE. ON THIS BASIS ALSO, IN MY OPINION THE ADDITION DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. I ACCORDINGLY CONFI RM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH NOV., 2015. SD./- (P. K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 09.11 2015 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (IT AT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 9/11 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10/11 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE JM/AM SECOND MEMBER 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND AM/AM MEMBER 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS /PS SR. PS/ PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/ PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER