Smt. Brij M. Sharma, Bharuch V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

ITA 246/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9210 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL H TALATI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 68; 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 2 46 / AHD/20 1 4 A.Y. 20 0 3 - 04 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRA DIP KUMAR KEDIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2 46 / AHD /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 3 - 04 SMT. BRIJ M. SHARMA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PROP . SUNRISE EXPORTS, WARD 1, BHARUCH. C/65/4, GIDC, BHARUCH. [PAN A HLPS 6348 B ] (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI S UNIL H. TALATI , A.R. RE SPONDENT BY : SHRI DHARAMVIR YADAV, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 .0 2 . 20 1 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .02 .201 7 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA , J.M. TH IS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A SSESSMENT Y EAR 20 0 3 - 0 4 ARISE S AGAINST CIT(A) - I, BARODA S ORDER DATED 22.11.2013 PASSED IN CASE NO. CAB - I/246/12/ - 13 UPHOLDING ASS ESSING OFFICER S ACTION MAKING ADDITIONS OF UNEXPLAINED C A SH CREDITS/DEPOSITS OF RS.1,38,000/ - UNDER SECTION 68 AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.4,67,415/ - UNDER SECTION 69 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. IT APPEARS AT THE OUTSET THAT THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL QUA THE TWO ISSUES OF SECTION 68 AND 69 ADDITIONS S T ATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) S ORDER UN DER CHALLENGE DISCUSS ES A SSESSING OFFICER S OBSERVATIONS AS WELL A S ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS AT LENGTH READING A S UNDER : - ITA NO . 2 46 / AHD/20 1 4 A.Y. 20 0 3 - 04 PAGE 2 OF 3 4. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE ASSESSEE S CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,67,415 / - REPRESENTS KNOWN SOURCE. THE AR O F THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER : 'KINDLY REFER OUR EARLIER SUBMISSIONS WHEREBY WE HAVE EXP LAINED THAT WE RECEIVED PAYMENT IN CASH BY DISCOUNTING A CHEQUE NO.02420795 THROUGH PUNAMCHAND DEVCHAND. PLEASE NOTE THIS CHEQUE WAS RECEIVED FROM DEVSHREE SYN TEX PVT. LTD. T HE FACT THAT THIS CHEQUE NO.02420795 BELONGS TO DEVSHREE SYNTEX PVT. LTD ., C AME TO OUR KNOWLEDGE AFTER RECEIVING A NOTE SHEET FROM HON'BLE DRT AS BA NK (SBS) FILED A CASE AGAINST M/S. DEVSHREE SYNTEX PVT. LTD. I N HON'BLE DRT. PLEASE FURTHER NOTE THAT WE HAVE SALES, PURCHASES & JOB WORK BUSINESS WITH M/S. DEVSHREE SYNTEX PVT. LTD. SO SOMETIMES PAYMENT IS RECEIVED AND SOMETIME PAYMENT IS MADE. SO WE HAVE BUSINESS RELATION BY WAY OF CREDITOR & DEBTOR AMONG OURSELVES. SIR, AS ALREADY KNOWN TO T HE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE WAS A FIRE INCIDENCE IN OUR FACTORY DURING APRIL 2003. THEREBY ALL THE RECORD WAS DESTROYED. THEREAFTER WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RECEIVING RELATIVE DOCUMENTS FROM RELEVANT THIRD PARTIES, WHICH IS BEING RECEIVED, SUBMITTED AND EXPL AINED TO THE DEPARTMENT AT DIFFERENT INTERVALS. THIS EXPLANATION HAD BEEN AS PER THE AVAILABILITY OF THE RELATIVE DOCUMENTS. SIR, HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAVE REMANDED THE CASE TO YOUR OFFICE AS A FRESH. SO , K INDLY LOOK INTO THE MATTER AS A FRESH AS PER T HE LATEST DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATIONS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS OUR BOOKS WERE DESTROYED DUE TO FIRE. SIR, YOU MAY ALSO CONFIRM THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION FROM PUNAMCHAND DEVCHAND SHRO F & RAMESH KUMAR AMBALAL. FOR YOUR ACT OF KINDNESS FOR ADMITTING TH E VITAL EVIDENCES, THE UNDERSIGNED SHALL R EMAIN HIGHLY OBLIGED TO YOUR HONORS.' 3. SHRI TALATI, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUES IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE S CASE THAT BO T H THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACT IN MAKING THE TWO ADDITIONS IN QUESTION IN THE IMPUGNED CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID TWO ADDITIONS COULD ONLY BE DISPUTED BY WAY OF LEADING COGENT EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT THE SAME ARE NOT UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT S (SUPRA). SHRI TALATI IS VERY FAIR AT ITA NO . 2 46 / AHD/20 1 4 A.Y. 20 0 3 - 04 PAGE 3 OF 3 THE BAR THAT THIS CASE FILE DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY SUCH MATERIAL EVIDENCE SO AS TO REBUT THE ABOVE EXTRACT ED CIT(A) S FINDING. HE HOWEVER SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE S FACTOR Y PREMISES IS LYING CLOSED SINCE PAST MANY YEARS AND THEREFORE HE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. WE DO NOT CONCUR WITH THIS EXPLANATION . WE REITERATE THAT THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEREIN A CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF T HIS T RIBUNAL ALREADY RESTORED TH E ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH INNINGS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO EXTEND ONE MORE OLIVE BRANCH TO THE ASSESSEE AND MORE PARTICULARLY SINCE HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE ANY EVID ENCE SO A S TO CONTROVERT THE CIT(A) S FINDING UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. WE THUS AFFIRM THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS FORMING SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED . P RONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT TODAY ON THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - PRA DIP KUMAR KEDIA S.S. GODARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPO NDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD