ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Santokh Singh, Delhi

ITA 2229/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3466 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJANI MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HONBLE VICE PRESI DENT & SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2229/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 ACIT, VS. SANTOKH SINGH, CIRCLE 29(1), PROP. M/S SPEEDLINE NEW DELHI. INTERNATIONAL 68/2, 1 ST FLOOR, GANDHI GALI, FATEHPURI, DELHI. AISPS-8712K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. SURJANI MOHANTY, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 04.03.2010 FOR A.Y . 2006-07. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY THE ENTRY RELATING TO LOAN OF RS. 34 LAKH FROM THE RECORD OF THE AO OF MANGAL INTERNATIONAL AND IN THE EVENT, THESE ARE FOUND TO BE IN ORDER, THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 LAKH IS TO B E DELETED. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIG HT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. ITA NO. 2229/D/2010 2 2. FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO F OUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD RAISED A LOAN OF RS. 34 LAKH FROM M/S MANGAL INTERNATIONAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAI N THE SAME. DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO ISSUED SUMMO N TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDING TO AO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE CR EDIT AND FINDING THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNSATISFACTOR Y THE AO ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3. BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT M/S MAN GAL INTERNATIONAL WAS OWNED BY ONE SH. KHALILULLAH MANG AL AND AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS HE HAS PROVIDED HIM CONFIRMATION OF THE AC COUNT AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENT INDICATING BOTH GIVING AND RETURN OF LOAN OF RS. 34 LAKH WHICH WAS REPAID IN THE MONTH OF JUNE, JULY, 2006. THE CIT(A) FORWARDED THESE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE A O AND CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO REJECTE D THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE STORY NOW PRESE NTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND DIFFICULT TO DIGEST AND, THEREFORE, THE AO OBJECTED FOR THE ADMISSION OF AFOREMENTIONED EVI DENCE. ON THESE FACTS, LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PR ODUCED A COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF MANGAL INTERNATIONAL AND HAS ALSO P RODUCED A CONFIRMATION FROM MANGAL INTERNATIONAL IN RESPECT O F ADVANCE AND RETURN OF LOAN. THE AO DID NOT CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY VE RIFICATIONS AND IGNORE ITA NO. 2229/D/2010 3 THESE EVIDENCES COMPLETELY IN THE REMAND REPORT. T HEREFORE, CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE ENTRIES RELATING TO T HE LOAN OF RS. 34 LAKH FROM THE RECORDS OF ASSESSING OFFICER OF MANGAL INT ERNATIONAL AND HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE EVENT THESE ARE FOUND TO BE IN ORDER, THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 LAKH IS TO BE DELETED. AGAINST THESE OBSERV ATIONS OF LD. CIT(A) THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS FIELD AFOREMENTIONE D GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE PROCE ED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEAR ING LD. DR AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON OUR RECORD. 5. LD. DR RELYING UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PLEADED THAT ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE AO. THE AO WAS ALSO R IGHT IN REQUESTING THE LD. CIT(A) FOR NON-ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE. THEREFORE, SHE PLEADED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DIRECTED THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SAID EVIDENCE AND IN THIS MANNER, THE LD. DR HAS OB JECTED TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF L D. DR. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE H AD FURNISHED CONFIRMATION AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR. THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT REMAND REPORT. INSTEAD OF VERIFYING THE DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE, ITA NO. 2229/D/2010 4 LD. AO OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHT LY DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY SUCH EVIDENCE FROM THE INCOME TAX RECORD OF THE CREDITOR AND IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER THEN THE ADDITION SHOU LD BE DELETED. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN SUCH DIRECTIONS OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (I.P. BANSAL ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29.7.11 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR