DCIT, Circle-5(1), Bhubaneswar V. M/s. Sri Jagannath Promoters & Builders , Bhubaneswar

ITA 282/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3675 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R P SAHU
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PA V AN KUMAR GADALE, JM . / ITA NO. 282 /CTK/201 7 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 20 1 4 ) DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), BHU BANESWAR VS. M/S SRI JAGANNATH PROMOTERS & BUILDERS, PLOT NO.370/3184, SISHU VIHAR, NR. TOYOTA SHOW ROOM, PATIA, BHUBANESWAR - 751024 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A RFS 1223 J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA, DR [ /AS SESSEE BY : SHRI R.P.SAHU, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 13 / 0 8 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 / 0 8 /201 8 / O R D E R PER SHRI PA V AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1 , BHUBANESWAR , DATED 31.03.2017 PASSED IN I.T.APPEAL NO. 0132 / 1 5 - 1 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 2 - 201 3 . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,14,991/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITOR, WHEN THE CREDITOR CONFIRMED IT AS NIL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE IT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,88,588/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITOR, WHEN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR DID NOT MATCH WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE IT OTHERWISE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.92,3807 - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO. 282 /CTK/201 7 2 U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, WHEN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR DID NOT MATCH WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE IT OTHERWISE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,22,766/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITOR, WHEN NO CONFIRMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE IT OTHERWISE, ONUS OF WHICH LIES WITH HIM. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,83,742/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, WHEN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR DID NOT MATCH WITH THE ASSESSEE AND TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE IT OTHERWISE. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,77,006/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITI ES U/S.41(1) OF THE ACT, WHEN THE AMOUNTS ARE OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN 3 YEARS. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.7,58,770/ - AS AGAINST RS .18,96,925/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON THIS ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ALTER, AMEND OR ADD ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDING. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WORKS & CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL COMPLEX/GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTAL WORKS ETC. AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 08.10.2012 FOR THE A.Y. 201 2 - 201 3 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 62,05,820/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. S UBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S.143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME, LD. AR APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED. ITA NO. 282 /CTK/201 7 3 THEREAFTER T HE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND PASSED ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT , DATED 27.03.2015 MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS . 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE , PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . BEFORE US, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED IN SUBMITTING THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND OTHER DETAILS IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE SUBMISSIONS AND TOOK A SUO MOTU DECISION FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. 7 . CONTRA, LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AND CIT(A), THEREFOR E, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SOLE CRUX OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE OF THE REVENUE IS WITH RESP ECT TO THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), WHEREAS LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT ON THE FACTS AND ALSO INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL . WE FOUND THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE REVENUE FROM 1 TO 7 ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE CIT(A) BUT PRIMA FACIE ITA NO. 282 /CTK/201 7 4 LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT ON THE EACH DISPUTED ISSUE AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO AND JUDICIAL DECISION AND DEL ETED THE ADDITION. BEFORE US, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT WITH ANY NEW MATERIAL FACT S OR COGENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN EYES OF LAW . H ENCE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS DISPUTED ISSUE S AND UPHOLD THE SAME AND A CCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE GROUND S OF APPEAL OF REVENUE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 / 0 8 / 201 8 . SD/ - ( N.S.SAINI ) SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 14 / 0 8 /201 8 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTA CK 1. / THE APPELLANT - DCIT, CI RCLE - 5(1), BHUBANESWAR 2. / THE RESPONDENT - M/S SRI JAGANNATH PROMOTERS & BUILDERS, PLOT NO.370/3184, SISHU VIHAR, NR. TOYOTA SHOW ROOM, PATIA, BHUBANESWAR - 751024 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//