M/s. Vaibhav Dyestuff Industries, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 226/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 22620514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 226 /AHD/ 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 05 - 06 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH , SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] ITA NO. 226 / AHD / 2 0 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 05 - 06 VAIBHAV DYE S TUFF INDUSTRIES ....... .. . ..... APPELLANT C - 19, G.I.D.C. IND. ESTATE, ODHAV, AHMEDABAD . [PAN AABCV 0396 G] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, .... .................. .... .. RESPONDENT WARD 3(1), AHMEDABAD. APPEARANCES BY: P.F. JAIN FOR THE APPELLANT B.L. YADAV FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 2 ND , 201 5 DAT E OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 16 TH , 2015 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE A SSESS EE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 0 9.10.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER) , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05 - 06 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. T HE LD. CIT(A PPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS.3,85,044 WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT S OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. HE HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS WHICH LAY ON IT WARRANTING NO ADDITION THEREOF . 3. ON THE FACTS NO INTEREST U/S. 234 - B OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN LEVIED. ITA NO . 226 /AHD/ 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 05 - 06 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL ONLY A FEW MATERIAL FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. IT IS SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AS THE MATTER WAS EARLIER RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS DISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS WITH ACCURATE TRADING CO., WHICH INCLUDED RS.2,90,469/ - AS OPENING BALANCE AND SUBSEQUENT RECEIPTS OF RS.1,00,000/ - (BY CHEQUE ON ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE), RS.1,85,044/ - AND RS.2,00,000/ - (BY CHEQUES DRAWN ON LORD KRISHNA BANK) . WHILE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.2,90,469/ - AND RECEIPT OF RS.1,00,000/ - AS EXPLAINED, HE DECLINED TO ACCEPT EXPLANATION OF RS.3,85,044/ - ON THE GROUND THAT RELATED BANK CONFIRMATION, STATEMENT DIRECTLY BY LORD KRISHNA BANK WAS NOT FURNISHED AND THAT CONFIRMATION OF ACCURATE TRADING CO. WAS NOT FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION THAT LORD KRISHNA BANK IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE AND THAT ALL THIS WAS DULY REFLECTED IN AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE AS WAS H IS CONTENTION THAT ACCURATE TRADING CO. HAS CLOSED DOWN. IN THIS BACKGROUND, AN ADDITION OF RS.3,85,044/ - WAS MADE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE M E. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. I FIND THAT IT IS INDEED IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO NOW FURNISH STATEMENT OF LORD KRI SHNA BANK AS IT HAS CLOSED DOWN. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE S ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED AND THESE ACCOUNTS SHOW THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE ALSO RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. THE OTHER CHEQUE RECEIPTS ARE ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE EXISTENCE OF ITA NO . 226 /AHD/ 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 05 - 06 PAGE 3 OF 3 ACCURAT E TRADING CO. IS NOT EVEN IN DOUBT. SINCE CONSIDERABLE TIME HAS LAPSED AND THE ENTITY HAS CLOSED BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE IS GENUINELY PREVENTED FROM FURNISHING CONFIRMATION BY ACCURATE TRADING CO. KEEPING IN MIND ALL THESE FACTS, AS ALSO ENTIRETY OF THE C ASE, I DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.3,85,044/ - . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2015. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 16 TH D AY OF NOVEMBER , 2015 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD