Smt. Premilaben V.Gheewala, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(3), Surat

ITA 2140/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9354 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILAJA RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: KK SHAH
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, AM PREMILABEN V. GHEEWALA, 4, NIKUNJ SOCIETY, OPP. KADAMB BHAVAN, NANPURA, SURAT. VS. ITO, WARD-5(3), SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI K. K. SHAH, A.R. RESPONDENT BY:- SMT. SHAILAJA RAI, DR O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FO LLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.2,63,564/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATE OF PROFIT ON T RADING OF YARN AS PER PAGE NO.3 OF THE APPEAL ORDER. (2) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.32,14,181/- ON ACCOUNT OF OUTSTANDING CREDITORS U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT AS PER PAGE NO.5 OF THE APPEAL ORDER. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF YARN. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES AND, THEREFORE, AO PASSED ORDER UNDER S ECTION 144 BY ESTIMATING INCOME @ 10% OF THE TURNOVER. THE AO ALS O MADE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF OUTSTANDING CREDITORS FOUND IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THUS A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.34,77,745/- WAS MADE. T HE LD. CIT(A) ITA NO.2140/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR :2007-08 ITA NO.2140/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 2 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT COMPLIANCE WAS NOT MADE BEFORE THE AO, RETURN WAS NOT FILED UNDER SECTION 44AF, ESTIMATE MADE BY THE AO IS REASONABLE AND ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CREDITORS. 3. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT PERMISSION OF LD. CIT(A) UNDER RULE 46A TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS BUT SUCH PERMISSION WAS NOT GRANTED. 4. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE RESTO RE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMP LY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED TO HIM IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS BUT, IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES BEF ORE THE AO WHO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUES BY MAKING DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. APP EAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30.11.10. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 30.11.10. MAHATA/- ITA NO.2140/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 19/11/2010. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 22/11/2010 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..