Anil Kniting Industries, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2621/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3567 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY GOEL
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI A BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2621/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2012-13] ANIL KNITTING INDUSTRIES VS. THE A.C.I.T M-118, SHASTRI NAGAR WARD 35(3) NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN : AAHFA 4960 G [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.03.2020 ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY GOEL, CI T-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 12, NEW DELHI DATED 27.02.2017 PERTAININ G TO A.Y 2012-13. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TWO-FOLD FIRS TLY, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,89,081/- OUT OF RS. 6,80,696/- AND SECONDLY, THE GRIEVANCE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 11,10,334/- OUT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 12,15,959/-. 2 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE ISSUED NOR THERE IN ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THER EFORE, WE DECIDED TO PROCEED EXPARTE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DR, WHO PLACED STRONG RELIA NCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. FACTS ON RECORD SHOW THAT DURING THE COURSE OF S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUE D NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT] TO SUNDRY CREDITORS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE COULD NOT PROVIDE SUITABLE EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO DIFFERENCES IN THE CASES OF 15 PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, DISAL LOWED RS. 12,15,959/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND RS. 6,80,696/- O N ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS FOR WANT OF RECONCILIATION. 6. WHEN THE MATTER WAS AGITATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A), CERTAIN DETAILS WERE FURNISHED AND THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FO R REMAND REPORT. 3 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT (A) HELD AS UNDER: 10.16 DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO ALL THE 15 CREDITORS TO SUBMI T THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUN T INCLUDING COPY OF BILLS / INVOICES ETC., NATURE OF TRANSACTIO NS ALONGWITH MODE, PAN WITH ITR AND OUTSTANDING AMOUNT PAYABLE. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT OUT OF 15 CREDITORS, IN 7 C ASES, NOTICE U/S 133(6) WERE RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED AND OUT OF T HE REST ONLY M/S SONY KIT FAB AND M/S KATT SPECIAL MACHINE PVT. LTD. SUBMITTED THEIR REPLY. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO S UBMITTED THAT NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO ALL THE DEBT ORS AND REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM 6 DEBTORS OUT OF 9. APPELLAN T HAS CLAIMED THAT TRADE CREDITORS AND DEBTORS HAVE SUBMI TTED THEIR CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT TO ASSESSING OFFICER 10.17 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT. NOW APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT CONFIRMATION M IGHT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE FORWAR DING THE REMAND REPORT. APPELLANTS APPLICATION WAS FORWARDE D TO ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 09. 09.2016 AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) ON 23.09.2016 AND SHE HAS SUBMITTED HER REPLY ON 18.11 .2016. 4 THEREFORE, THERE WAS ALMOST TIME OF TWO MONTHS DURI NG WHICH NO FURTHER COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY CONCERNED PARTIES. A PPELLANT IN HIS REPLY HAS ONLY MADE ONLY HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM. IF THAT WAS THE CASE AND HE WAS SURE, HE COULD HAVE OBTAINED THE CO PIES OF REPLIES SUBMITTED BY THE SUNDRY DEBTORS AND CREDITO RS AND ENCLOSED ALONGWITH HIS REPLY IN REJOINDER TO THE RE MAND REPORT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE CLAIM OF APPELL ANT. 10.18 WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S SONY KNIT FAB, OUTSTANDING AMOUNT AS ON 31.03.2012 WAS RS.91,181/- WHEREAS THE AMOUNT AS PER ASSESSEE IS R S.91,062/-. SIMILARLY, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE O F M/S KATT SPECIAL MACHINES PVT. LTD., TOTAL OUTSTANDING AMOUN T AS ON 31.03.2012 WAS RS. 14,650/- WHEREAS THE AMOUNT AS P ER ASSESSEE IS RS. 14,563/-. I HAVE EXAMINED THE LEDGE R ACCOUNT AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS ALMOST RECONC ILED IN BOTH THE CASES. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.91,062/- A ND RS. 14,563/- IN THE CASE OF M/S SONY KNIT FAB AND M/S K ATT SPECIAL MACHINES PVT. LTD. IS DELETED. WITH RESPECT TO THE REST OF THE CASES NAMELY M/S MASTER HOSIERY, M/S ATHARVA FABRIC , M/S ECS CORPORATION, M/S GECON KNITS, M/S JK INDUSTRIES, M/ S RAJASTHAN CENTRAL STORE, M/S NEHA PROCESS HOUSE, M/S POOJA CA RGO, M/S PRABHAT HOSIERY, M/S RAJASTHAN INTERNATIONAL, M/S R AM SHRI INTERNATIONAL, M/S SUNIL HOSIERY FACTORY, SHRI DURL AB SHARMA, IT IS SEEN THAT NO REPLIES WERE SUBMITTED AND IN 7 CAS ES, NOTICES 5 U/S 133(6) WERE RECEIVED BACK. THEREFORE, THOUGH AP PELLANT HAS BEEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITY, NO RECONCILIATION COULD BE DONE. APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY RECONCILIATION STATEMENT IN REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE REST OF THE 1 3 PARTIES. AS SUCH, ONUS CAST ON THE APPELLANT IS NOT DISCHARGED. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.L 1,10,334/- IS SUSTAINED. 10.L19 WITH RESPECT TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AC COUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS, IT IS SEEN THAT 6 PARTIES OUT OF TH E 9 PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR REPLIES. IN THE CASE OF M/S FA SHION NEXT, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) TO C ONFIRM THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT AND SUBMIT THE COPY OF DEBIT NOT E. HOWEVER, M/S FASHION NEXT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY COPY OF DEBI T NOTE. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO STATED THAT THERE IS NO POSTING OF DEBIT NOTE IN THEIR LEDGER ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT I S CLEAR THAT AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,60,365/-, THE OUTSTAND ING AMOUNT AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S FASHION NEXT WAS RS. 13,64,788/-. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF M/S GODDESS EXPORTS PVT. LTD., THERE IS DEBIT BALANCE O F RS.6,15,466/- IN THE BOOKS OF M/S GODDESS EXPORTS P VT. LTD. AS AGAINST RS.5,15,466/- DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. AS SESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER STATED THAT M/S CREATIONS WAS I SSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) TO SUBMIT THE COPY OF DEBIT NOTE ISSUED, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED. IT IS SEEN THAT APPE LLANTS CLAIMS THAT DEBIT NOTE WAS ISSUED HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AS NEITHER M/S CREATIONS HAS SUBMITTED THE DEBIT NOTE NEITHER THERE IS NO 6 POSTING OF DEBIT NOTE IN THEIR LEDGER ACCOUNT AND T HE AMOUNT OF DEBIT BALANCE IS NIL IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE P ARTY. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT. IN THE CASE OF M/S LEELA NIRYAT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS DU E TO THE DEBIT NOTE OF RS. L4,030/- ISSUED BY CUSTOMER. THEREFORE, DIFFERENCE OF RS. L4,030/- IS RECONCILED IN THE CASE OF M/S LE ELA NIRYAT. IN THE CASE OF M/S TRADITION & MODERNITY, ASSESSING OF FICER HAS STATED THAT AS PER THE LEDGER OF M/S TRADITION & MO DERNITY, THERE IS DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.L,97,197/- AND M/S TRA DITION & MODERNITY HAS ISSUED DEBITS OF RS.840/- AND RS.2,50 0/- AND PAYMENT OF RS.26,129/- AND RS.L1,305/- WERE MADE ON 15.02.2012 AND 17.03.2012 RESPECTIVELY AND NOT ON 28.04.2012 A ND 30.04.2012. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT THAT APPELLAN T HAS NOT RECONCILED THE DIFFERENCE AS THE AMOUNT OF RS. L,97 ,197/- IS AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DEBIT NOTES ISSUED AN D NOT AS CLAIMED BY APPELLANT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BALANCE OF M/S JAYDEE EXPORT WAS TAKEN INSTEAD OF M/S JUNG GARMENTS. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT O F M/S JUNG GARMENTS IS DELETED. WITH RESPECT TO M/S AMAN EXPOR TS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED IN THE REMAND REPORT T HAT AS PER THE ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY M/S AMAN EXPORTS, DEBIT NO TE OF RS.729/- WAS ISSUED ON 23.03.2012 AND CHEQUE OF RS. 53,028/- WAS ISSUED ON 31.03.2012.1 HAVE EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT AND IT IS CLEAR THAT DEBIT NOTE OF RS.729/- AND CHE QUE OF RS.53,028/- WAS ISSUED AND, THEREFORE, DIFFERENCE I N THE CASE OF M/S AMAN EXPORTS IS RECONCILED. AS A RESULT, DISALL OWANCE IN THE CASE OF M/S AMAN EXPORTS (RS.53,757/-), M/S LEELA N IRYAT (RS. 7 14,08/-) AND M/S JUNG GARMENTS (RS. 1,23,820/-) IS RECONCILED AND, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,91,615/- IS D ELETED. IN THE CASE OF M/S FASHION NEXT, M/S GODDESS EXPORT PVT. L TD., M/S CREATIONS, M/S TRADITION & MODERNITY, THE DIFFERENC E HAS NOT BEEN RECONCILED. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF M/S ALKA C REATIONS, M/S DESIGN & DESIGN AND M/S OVERSEAS, NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,89,081/- IS SUSTAINED 8. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE AF ORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INF IRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFE RE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2621/DEL/2017 IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.03 .2020. SD/- SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 04 TH MARCH, 2020. VL/ 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P S/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER