Pitamber Coated Paper Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2619/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4458 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAUMY AGRAWAL
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2619/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) M/S PITAMBER COATED PAPER LTD. AG-23, SHALIMAR BAGH NEW DELHI-110088 PAN AAACP 6038J VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SAUMY AGRAWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. UMESH TAKYAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 26 .0 2 .20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.02.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-7, NEW DELHI {CIT(A)} DATED 27.03.201 7 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSES SEE COMPANY FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A LOSS AT RS.(-)45,37,558/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED U NSECURED LOAN OF RS.10,00,000/- EACH FROM M/S PREMIER INFRATECH (P.) LTD., M/S TRUTH TRADER (P.) LTD., AND M/S GREEN CITY GOLD WELL (P.) LTD. TOTALING TO ITA NO.2619/DEL/2017 (ASST. YEAR: 2012-13) PAGE | 2 RS.30,00,000/-. THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED WHICH WERE RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS LEFT . THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT P ROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION, THEREFORE, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.30,00,000/- ON AC COUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE CO PY OF THE PAN NO., COPY OF DOCUMENTS FILED WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANY A ND COPY OF THE RTGS DETAILS AND INTEREST PAID TO THESE PARTIES WERE FIL ED. THEREFORE, INITIAL BURDEN OF ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED. THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WAS CALLED FOR, IN WHICH THE AO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO- OPERATE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND NO DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO SUPPORT THE GENUINE CREDITORS. TH E LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE PROVIDED NEW ADDRESS ON WHICH AO AGAIN ISS UED NOTICES U/S 133(6) BUT NO RESPONSE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. EVEN IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY ADDIT IONAL DOCUMENTS TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDITS. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT FILING OF PAN MAY PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS BUT ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION. THE ITA NO.2619/DEL/2017 (ASST. YEAR: 2012-13) PAGE | 3 ASSESSEE EVEN DID NOT FILE FORM NO.26AS OF THE CRED ITORS AND NO REPLY FROM THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, THUS, ASSESSEE FA ILED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING CERTAIN DECISIONS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT HAVE BE EN PAID BACK TO THESE THREE PARTIES. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORIZES BELOW. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS, THEIR BANK STATEMENTS AND THEIR BALANCE SHEET BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS, HOWEVER MEREL Y FILED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK. IN ABSENCE OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS NOTED ABOVE, T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. MERELY BECAUSE AMOUNT IS REPAID FOR WHICH ALSO NO ITA NO.2619/DEL/2017 (ASST. YEAR: 2012-13) PAGE | 4 EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED IS NO GROUND TO DELETE TH E ADDITION. THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WH ICH HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN RESPONDED TO BY THE CREDITORS, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN APPEAL OF ASSESSEE, SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/02/2020 . SD/- SD/- (O.P.KANT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26/02/2020 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI