Sh. Mushtaq Ahmed Prop., UDHAMPUR V. The Income-tax Officer, UDHAMPUR

ITA 23/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76948 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.23(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 PAN :AAPPA3938G MUSHTAQ AHMED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S. NATIONAL STONE CRUSHER, UDHAMPUR. UDHAMPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:NONE RESPONDENT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 13/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:19/05/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), JAMMU DATED 25.11.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDI TION OF RS.2,38,043/- IN WAGES PAYABLE ACCOUNT OF BOGUS LIA BILITY BECAUSE OF INFLATED EXPENDITURE. ITA NO.23(ASR)/2014 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDI TION OF RS.77,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF RAJUJI TIPPERWALA AS CONF IRMATION CALLED BY THE ITO WAS NOT REPLIED BY THE PARTY. 3. THAT RAJU TIPPERWALA COULD HAVE BEEN CALLED U/S 131 BEFORE MAKING ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS LIABILITY. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO FACTS. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED TH E FACTS OF THE CASE AS SUCH HE HAS SUSTAINED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIO NS: WAGES PAYABLE RS.238043/- (BOGUS LIABILITY) SUNDRY CREDITORS RS. 77000/- (FALSE LIABILITY) -------------- RS.315043/- -------------- THAT THE ABOVE ARE BUSINESS LIABILITIES ARE NOT BOG US/FALSE AS PER STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. THAT THE RELIEF OF RS.315043/- MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWE D TO THE APPELLANT. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR TO TAKE AN ADDITION GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD FOR 13.05.2014. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED, WE ARE REJECTING THE REQUEST O F THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ARE PROCEEDING TO DECIDE THE ISSUE EX-PARTE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. ITA NO.23(ASR)/2014 3 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED INSPITE OF VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH HAS ALR EADY BEEN REJECTED BY THE BENCH. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTI FIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,38,043/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES PAYA BLE ( BOGUS LIABILITY ) SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE RELEVANT RE GISTERS BEFORE HIM WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED ALL THE RECORD OF EMPLOYEES, ALL THE REGISTERS REQUIRED FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES & SALARIES ARE MAINTA INED AND AFFIDAVITS OF EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN FILED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,38,043/- AS IT IS A BUSINESS LIABI LITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 5.1. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.77,000/- SUSTAIN ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF RAJUJI TIPPERWALA, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM FROM TIME TO TIME. IT IS EVIDENT THAT B USINESS OF TRANSPORTATION IS ITA NO.23(ASR)/2014 4 BEING DONE THROUGH RAJU TIPPERWALA AND IT IS GENUI NE TRADING PARTY AND AS SUCH THE LIABILITY IS GENUINE ONE. MOREOVER, THE AD DITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE TO RAJU TIPPERWALA U/S 131 FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE, WHICH IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS N OT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.77,000/- WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS P RODUCED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.77,000/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HENCE, T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH MAY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19TH MAY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:MR. M