Shri Ashokbhai K.Prajapati, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2176/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9673 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: CHIRAG R SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO.2176/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) ASHOKBHAI K. PRAJAPATI 16, VITHAL PARK SOC., RAJENDRA PARK ROAD, ODHAV, AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-9(2), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AEAPP9627A /BY APPELLANT : SHRI CHIRAG R. SHAH, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT :SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 20.07.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2015 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD, DATED 8 TH MAY, 2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.2176/AHD/09 A.Y. 06-07 [ASHOKBHAI K. PRAJAPA TI VS. ITO] PAGE 2 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVE TO BE UNCALLED FOR. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS FIRST APPELL ANT AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN LAW & ON FACTS IN MAKING AND CONFORMING RESPECTIVELY ADDITION OF RS.9,21,379/- TOWARDS SHORT CREDIT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT WITHOUT GI VING ANY SET OFF OF EXPENSES INCURRED. THE SAID ADDITIO N DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.9,21,379/- TOWARDS SHORT CREDIT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT. THIS ADDITION HA S BEEN MADE AS PER NARRATION GIVEN IN PARA 3 OF ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THOUGH CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.37,60,000/- WERE SHOWN IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME BUT DURING SCRUTINY OF BANK STATEMENT THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.9,21,379/ - RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM VASANI BUILDERS HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THROUGH FIELD ENQUIRIES MADE U/S.133( 6) FROM BANK OF BARODA THAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM VASANI BUILDERS AND AS SUCH SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED SUCH CONTRACT REC EIPTS IN RETURN. AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE T O EXPLAIN THE LAPSE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION. 2.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS NOT DELIBERATE ON PART OF ASSESSEE. SO, ADDITION IN QU ESTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CONF IRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER . 2.2 SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE INT ER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ITA NO.2176/AHD/09 A.Y. 06-07 [ASHOKBHAI K. PRAJAPA TI VS. ITO] PAGE 3 AND CONFIRMING RESPECTIVELY ADDITION OF RS.9,21,379 /- TOWARDS SHORT CREDIT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT WITHOUT GIVING ANY SET OFF OF EXPENSES INCURRED. ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE UNDER BO NAFIDE BELIEF NOT TO DISCLOSE THE SAME IN BUSINESS OF FORM 16-A. EVEN IF CONTRACT RECEIPTS WERE OMITTED TO BE INCLUDED AN D ASSESSING OFFICER DISCOVERED THEN ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HA VE ADDED PROFIT ONLY WHICH WAS OFFERED AT 8% BOTH DURING IN ASSESSMENT AND APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT THE ENTIRE RECEIP T OF RS.9,21,379/-. ON OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 2.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT SUNDRY DEBTORS HAD BEEN SHOWN OF RS.(-) 4,11,136/-, BREAK-UP CHART OF SUNDRY DEBTORS SHOWED THAT CREDIT OF RS.7,58,253/- HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE NAME OF VASANI BUILDERS ALONGWITH OTHER NAMES AND AFTER REDUCING T HE ADVANCES GIVEN BY ASSESSEE SUNDRY DEBTORS WERE WORK ED OUT AT RS.(-)4,11,136/-. SUNDRY DEBTORS LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND CLEAR AT ALL, SIMILARLY WHY FIGURE IN MINUS HAD BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD DEBTORS IN THE BALANCE- SHEET. EVEN IF DEBTORS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN OF RS.9,21,379/ - IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF ASSESSE E THAT RECEIPTS HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR WAS NOT FOUND ACCEP TED. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND LAPSE IN SHOWING THE DISCRE PANCY THROUGH FIELD ENQUIRIES FROM BANK OF BARODA AND HAV ING GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE BEFORE PROCEEDING WI TH ADDITION. THE ARGUMENT THAT EXPENSES OF RS.8,47,669/- SHOULD BE ALLOWED AGAINST RECEIPT OF RS.9,21,379/- WAS CONSID ERED BY ITA NO.2176/AHD/09 A.Y. 06-07 [ASHOKBHAI K. PRAJAPA TI VS. ITO] PAGE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BECAUSE ASSE SSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE EITHER AT ASSESSMENT OR APPELL ATE STAGE FOR THIS NEW CLAIM AS ARGUED TO BE ALLOWED AT APPEL LATE STAGE. IN THIS BACKGROUND, CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.9,21,397/- . SAME IS UPHELD. 3. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD: DATED 27/07/2015 S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE !# / ASSESSEE $ %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT * )+ / CIT (A) ,-./00'(1 '( 123#&# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 4/5678 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / #9 1 :; 2% '( 123#&#< ITA NO.2176/AHD/09 A.Y. 06-07 [ASHOKBHAI K. PRAJAPA TI VS. ITO] PAGE 5 STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 20.07.2015 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE XXX 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 21.07.2015 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION 6) DATE OF FINAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON