Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma, Kanpur V. Inocme Tax Officer-2(4), Kanpur

ITA 272/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4738 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.272/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(4), KANPUR VS . SANTOSH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA PLOT NO. 165, TEJAB MILL COMPOUND, ANWAR GANJ, KANPUR PAN ABSPV 4044 N (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI ASH IS H JAISWAL, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 20/01/2016 DATE OF HEARING . /0 2 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. 1. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, KANPUR, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,7 3,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT H E HAS PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO JUSTIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS A ND PROOF OF GENUINENESS OF SHRI MANOJ SINGH, WHO HAS TAKEN AN ADVANCE FOR SALE OF PLOT. BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANYTHING ON RECORD. EVEN THE ADVANC E WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE 2 BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE MR. MANOJ SINGH IN ORDER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORT HINESS OF CREDITORS. BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE HIM, NOR DID HE ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUMMON HIM. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS PRIMARILY LAY ON IT. THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE, TH EREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED FEBRUARY, 2016 AKS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR