The Addl. CIT, Range, Rajahmundry V. M/s Sri Krishna Engineering Co & Others, Rajahmundry

ITA 278/VIZ/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0746 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S S GOPINATH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

ITA NO.278/VIZAG/2009 KRISHNA ENGINEERING PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.278/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ADD.CIT, RANGE RAJAHMUNDRY VS. SRI KRISHNA ENGINEERING CO. & OTHERS, RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO: AAQFS 6562 B APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.S.S. GOPINATH, DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE ORDER PER SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE CIT (A) IS NOT JU STIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,62,140/- SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE DESPITE, 2 OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46(A)(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. 2. THIS APPEAL IS CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 5-3-2010 A ND NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD DR HAS FILED A LE TTER DATED 4-3-2010 ALONG WITH THE PROOF OF SERVING OF NOTICE OF HEARIN G. ON PERUSAL OF IT WE FIND THAT NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROU GH THE REVENUE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR DESPITE VALID SERVICE O F NOTICE OF HEARING, WE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX-PARTE AGAINST THE A SSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. ITA NO.278/VIZAG/2009 KRISHNA ENGINEERING PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE LD DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF S UNDRY CREDITORS AND OTHER EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CR EDITORS APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE REVENUES CONTENTION AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT B EFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF SUNDRY C REDITORS FOUND IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, PRODUC ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND OTHER REQUISITE IN FORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE AO BEFORE THE AO. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSM ENT ORDERS THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE DATED 17-11-2008 THE ASSESSEE AP PEARED THROUGH HIS COUNSEL AND PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BILLS AN D VOUCHERS. AFTER ITS VERIFICATION THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE PROOF IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF CERTAIN SUNDRY CREDITORS. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM T HE ORDER THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED ON 18-12-2008 AND IN BE TWEEN ONLY 2 DATES OF HEARING WERE FIXED I.E. 24-11-2008 AND 8-12-2008 MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A SHORT PERIOD TO PRODUCE THE CO NFIRMATORY LETTERS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. ON NON FILING OF THESE LETTERS, T HE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.9,62,140/-. 5. BEFORE THE CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AF FIDAVITS OF ALL THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND IN TURN THE CIT(A) CALLED REMA ND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THESE AFFIDAVITS. INSTEAD FINDING FAULT THEREIN THE AO HAS SIMPLY DISPUTED THE ADMISSION OF THESE AFFIDAVITS ONLY FOR THE REAS ON THAT THESE WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO DESPITE TWO OPPORTUNITIES GRANT ED TO HIM. CIT (A) CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORDS AND THE AFFIDAVITS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONVINCED WITH IT HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 6. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS CONFRONTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED B EFORE HIM TO THE AO. ITA NO.278/VIZAG/2009 KRISHNA ENGINEERING PAGE 3 OF 3 THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME- TAX RULES. MOREOVER THE CIT (A) IS ALSO ARMED WITH CO-TERMINUS POWERS WITH THAT OF THE AO AND HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO EXAMINE TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM. THE CIT (A) DID THE SAME AND HAVI NG CONVINCED WITH IT HE DELETED THE ADDITION. DESPITE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE AO, HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE AFFIDAVITS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER . 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.5.2010. SD/- SD/- (B R BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADA V) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE:13 TH MAY, 2010 COPY TO 1 ADD. CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY RANGE, RAJAHMUNDRY 2 M/S SRI KRISHNA ENGINEERING COMPANY & OTHERS, D.N O.80-30-7/5 KOKA BHASKARAMMA NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 3 4 THE CIT (A) RAJAHMUNDRY THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM