ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Capscan Computers Forms Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2185/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4158 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB SENIOR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2185/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITO, WARD 3 (2), VS. M/S. CAPSCAN COMPUTERS FORMS P VT. LTD., NEW DELHI. A 2/177, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AABCC4977C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2017 DATE OF ORDER : 10.01.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILIN G THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- VIII, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE GROUND S INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ITA NO.2185/DEL/2014 2 ADDITION OF RS.73,46,300/- MADE BY THE AD ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY SAYING THAT NO REMAND WAS RECEIVED THOUGH THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE REMAND REPORT ALONG WITH COMMENTS OF THE ADDL. CIT WAS SUBMITTED TO CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 16-08-2012. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 254/250/144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) MAKING ADDITION OF RS.73,46,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND WAS ORDERED TO BE VERIFIED BY THE TRIBUN AL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION. THEREAFTER, ASSESSING OFFICER , IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION, AGAIN MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 73,46,300/- ON ASSESSEES FAILURE TO DISCHARGE ONUS BY EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U /S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 73,46,300/- BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENU E HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORD ER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) . 4. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICES AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEE DED TO DECIDE ITA NO.2185/DEL/2014 3 THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. S ENIOR DR AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOC UMENTS RELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES B ELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) GOES TO SHOW THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS, ASSESSEE BROUGHT ON RECORD NUMEROUS DOCUMENTS VIZ. SALE BILL S/INVOICES ETC. BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND IN ORDER TO VERIF Y THE SAME, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS CALLED UPON VIDE LETTER DATED 09.07.012. 7. LD. CIT (A) PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL BEFORE HIM BY RECORDING THAT EVEN AFTER A LAPSE OF ONE AND HALF YEAR, THE AO HAS FAILED TO FILE THE REMAND REP ORT THUS HE HAS NO OPTION BUT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE O F ARGUMENT, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE BROUGHT ON RECORD THE REMAND REP ORT SENT BY THE AO VIDE F.NO.ITO-WARD-3(2)/REMAND REPORT/2012-1 3/57 DATED 16.08.2012 TO THE LD. CIT (A) STATING THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 31.08.2010 AND FILED SOME PART REPLIES WHEREAS HE WAS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE SALE BILLS IN ONE-GO FOR V ERIFICATION OF THE ITA NO.2185/DEL/2014 4 CASH SALE AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO APPEAR BEFOR E HIM ON NUMEROUS DATES AND CONSEQUENTLY, REMAND PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AND REPORT WAS SENT TO THE LD. CIT (A). 8. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE REMA ND REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE AO IN THE DUE COURSE AND THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS A S DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, LD. CIT (A) WAS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE REMAND REPORT BEFORE DELETING THE ADDI TION AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND REMANDED TO LD. CIT (A) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMA ND REPORT (SUPRA), AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO THE PARTIES AND IN CASE, LD. CIT (A) DEEMS NECESSARY, FURTHER R EMAND REPORT QUA REMAINING DOCUMENTS MAY BE CALLED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ONCE FOR ALL. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 TS ITA NO.2185/DEL/2014 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-VIII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.