M/s. Parco Paints Private Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2164/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4866 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2164/DEL/2014 AY: 20 06-07 PARCO PAINTS PRIVATE LTD., 61/1, RAMJAS ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005 VS INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD 14(1), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT BY: SHRI K.V.S.R. KRISHNA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ATIQ AHMAD, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 05.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.08.2017 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XVII, NEW DELHI DATED 23.01.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE SOLE GROUND WHICH REA DS AS UNDER:- 2. THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,73,522/- ON ACCOUNT OF SO CALLED DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE NEEDS TO BE DELETED AS THERE HAS BEEN NO DIFFERENCE. 3. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED AT A TO TAL INCOME OF RS. 2,19,270/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN I.T.A. NO. 2164/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 2 INCOME OF RS. 24,92,792/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM ALLEGEDLY UNACCOUNTED SOURCES AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,73,522/-. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFI RMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON APPEA L BEFORE THE ITAT, THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 11.5.2010 IN I. T.A. NO. 1002/DEL/2010 SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AND DIRECT ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSE E TO FURNISH DETAILED EXPLANATION REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN PU RCHASE AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUBSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER U/S 254/143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND AGAIN ADDED BACK AN AMOUNT OF RS. 22,73,522/- WHILE NOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAIL ED TO APPEAR ON 15.11.2011 I.E. THE DATE FOR WHICH THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. THE LD. CIT(A) AGAIN CONFIRMED THE DISALL OWANCE AND NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHED THE ITAT FOR THE S ECOND TIME. I.T.A. NO. 2164/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 3 3.1 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSES SMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- I) NEERU MARKETING (P) LIMITED II) J.M. CHEMICAL CO. III) HITECH PLAST LTD. IV) BRIJRAJ HOLDINGS V) HINDUSTAN RASAYAN (P) LTD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT FOR CALLING FOR THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BOOKS WHICH THE PARTIES HAD F ILED AND, THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED THE PURC HASES SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE STA TEMENT OF ACCOUNT FILED BY THE PARTIES. THEREAFTER, OUR ATTE NTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE 5 OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHEREIN A CHART HAS BEEN TABULATED. THE CHART IS BEING REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - I.T.A. NO. 2164/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 4 S. NO. NAME OF THE PARTIES AMOUNT OF PURCHASE AS PER THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PARTY AMOUNT OF SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER REPLY. DIFFERENCE 1 . NEERU MARKETING (P) LIMITED 2598960 2642120 43160 2. J.M CHEMICAL CO. 2091175 2990461 899286 3. HITECH PLAST LTD. 2172726 3188050 1015324 4. BRIJRAJ HOLDINGS 606040 880813 274773 5. HINDUSTAN RASAYAN (P) LTD. 1832751 1873730 40979 . 2273522 3.2 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS AN ALLEGED DIFF ERENCE OF RS. 22,73,522/- BETWEEN THE VALUE OF PURCHASE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER THE CONFIRMATION FILED. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS ON ACCOUNT OF TOTALLING ERRO R AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AN ERROR IN MAKING THE A DDITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS FILE D THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHASES AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SALES AS SHOWN BY THE SELLING PART IES AND THE I.T.A. NO. 2164/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 5 SAME WAS ONLY A TOTALLING MISTAKE. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE WAS JUST RS. 14,618/- WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBMISSION ON THE REMAND REPORT. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CHECKING THE CALC ULATION AND VERIFYING THE FACT OF THE TOTALLING MISTAKE. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ALREADY THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DURING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 254/143(3) HAD NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATE AND, THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ITS OWN FAULT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. A PERUSAL O F THE RECORD DOES SHOW THAT PRIMA FACIE THERE IS A TOTALLING MIS TAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING LY, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE FACT OF THE TOTALLING MIST AKE AS HAS BEEN I.T.A. NO. 2164/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 6 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHA LL AFFORD DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING A FINAL ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 30TH AUGUST 2017 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR