ITO, Hisar V. M/s S.S. Impex, Hisar

ITA 2859/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97112 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2859 /DEL/20 11 AY: 200 5 - 06 ITO, WARD 4 VS. SS IMPEX, 9 TH KM STONE HISAR DELHI ROAD, HISAR PAN: AADES 1614 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SH. SUJIT KUMAR, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SH. VED JAIN, C.A. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), ROHTAK DATED 31.3.2011 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,42,512/ - MADE U/S 68 OF I .T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CASH CREDITORS AND INTEREST THEREON IN THE NAMES OF FOLLOWING PERSONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE : - I. SH RI DEEPAK KUMAR PROP. M/S PHOOL CHAND SADHU RAM RS.4,18,312 II. M/S HANUMA N COTTON GINNING & DAL FACTORY RS.5,24,329 III. M/S BANKE BIHARI CORP. HANSI RS.5,23,671 IV. M/S RAM CHAND RAGHUNATH RAI, HISAR RS.2,76,200 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,42,512/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROVISIONS OF 68 OF THE I. T.ACT AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH CREDITORS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS OUT OF DISALLOWANCES UNDER THE VARIO US HEADS ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE : - ITA 2859 /DEL/20 11 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 SS IMPEX 2 I) ADDITION OF RS.8000 / - MADE OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. II) ADDITION OF RS.1 0000 / - MADE OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. III) ADDITION OF RS.15000 / - MADE OUT OF CAR EXPENSES. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING SHRI VED JAIN, C.A. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2006 - 07. HE FURTHER STATED THAT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 , THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL TILL DATE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. THE LD.SR.D.R. RELIED ON THE O RDER PASSED BY THE A.O. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US SPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN WHICH THE CASH CREDIT HA S BEEN DECLARED AS BOGUS BY THE A.O., BUT IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE , THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. 6. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL SIMILAR ISSUE S ARE INVOLVED AS STATED IN T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ABOVE. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE , BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED IN THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ARA S 4 TO 4.4 PAGES AT 2 AND 3, ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. ITA 2859 /DEL/20 11 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 SS IMPEX 3 4. THE ACTION OF THE A O IN MAKING THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDITIONS WAS CONTESTED IN GROUNDS NO. 3 TO 6 OF APPEAL. BEFORE ME, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF SR. NO. (I), (II) & (IV) STAND DISPOSED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY MY ORDER FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 IN APPEAL NO. 424/HSR/2008 - 09 DATED 24.01.2011 AND REQUESTED FOR DELETION OF THE ADDITIONS. 4.1 I FIND FROM MY ORDER FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CO NCLUSION OF THE A O IN TREATING THE CASH CREDITS IN RESPECT OF SR. NO. (I), (II) & (IV) AS BOGUS IS NOT IN ORDER. FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE ADDITIONS MADE AND INTEREST DISALLOWED BY THE A O IN RESPECT OF SR. NO. (I), (II) & (IV) IS DELETED. 4.2 AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 2.50 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT AND 26,200/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN THE CASE OF SR. NO. (VI), THE A O HELD THAT THE CREDITOR HAS MEAGER BALANCE IN HIS ACCOUNT AND BEFORE ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE TO THE APPELLANT, CASH OF IDENTICAL AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. 4.3 THE AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT AFFIDAVIT AND COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF THE CREDITOR HAVE BEEN PRODUCE D BEFORE THE A O AND THE A O HAS COME TO MISCONCEIVED CONCLUSION WITHOUT REBUTTING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. HE RE - ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER CREDITORS IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2006 - 07. 4.4 I HAVE CONSI DERED THE ISSUE AND FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THIS LOAN ARE IDENTICAL TO THE OTHER LOANS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED IN MY APPEAL ORDER FOR THE AY 2006 - 07. FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE ADDITION MADE FOR THE UNSECURED LOAN AND THE INTEREST THEREON IS DELETED AND TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 6 .1. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.3 REGARDING DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND CAR EXPENSES, AFTER EXAMINING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED T HE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE AUDITED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS EXAMINED THE SAME AND RIGHTLY HELD THAT KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, NO EXPENSES OF PERSONAL NATURE HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN ITA 2859 /DEL/20 11 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 SS IMPEX 4 THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND, T HERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ADHOC DISALLOWANCES AND HE HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. 6 .2. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST SEPTEMBER , 2015 . SD/ - SD/ - (O.P.KANT) (H.S.SIDHU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 01 ST SEPTEMBER, 2015 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ITA 2859 /DEL/20 11 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 SS IMPEX 5 ASST. REGISTRAR