Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3544 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
08-07-2011
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
23-06-2011
Assessment Year
2001-2002
Appeal Filed On
10-06-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2900/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 D.C.I.T., D.C.I.T., D.C.I.T., D.C.I.T., VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S CHHABRA TRADING CO. M/S CHHABRA TRADING CO. M/S CHHABRA TRADING CO. M/S CHHABRA TRADING CO. LTD., LTD., LTD., LTD., CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -3(1), 3(1), 3(1), 3(1), 920, STATION ROAD, NEAR MEWA HOTEL 920, STATION ROAD, NEAR MEWA HOTEL 920, STATION ROAD, NEAR MEWA HOTEL 920, STATION ROAD, NEAR MEWA HOTEL NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI CHANDNI CHOWK, NEW DELHI CHANDNI CHOWK, NEW DELHI CHANDNI CHOWK, NEW DELHI CHANDNI CHOWK, NEW DELHI PAN NO.AAACC 5407 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV:JM: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 15 TH MARCH, 2010 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE O F THE REVENUE IS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF `15,15,500/-, WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE-CO MPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF SUITS AND SAREES. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2001 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF `63,94,032/-. THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS RECEIVED 2 AN INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING, THAT CERTAI N CONCERNS WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES. ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF S UCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF `15,15,500/- FROM M/S NOUMAN EXIM TRADIN G COMPANY. HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF I NCOME ALREADY FILED BY IT BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/ S 143(2) AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES OF `15,15,500/-. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S NOUMAN EX IM TRADING COMPANY WAS AN EXPORT FIRM RUN BY LATE MOHD . NOUMAN. IT WAS SITUATED AT TURKMAN GATE, DELHI. I T IS A REGULAR ASSESSEE WITH INCOME-TAX WARD/CIRCLE-3(1). THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF THIS FIRM WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT THIS FIRM WAS REGULARLY BUYING SAREES AND SUITS FRO M THE ASSESSEE. THE BUYER WAS OPERATING CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF PATIALA, DARYAGANJ WITH ACCOUNT NO.01050004047. ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN THE CAPACITY OF PAYMENT AGAI NST SALES. IN OTHER WORDS, CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TH AT IT HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. IT HAS REC EIVED 3 PAYMENTS AGAINST SALES MADE BY IT. THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS SHOWN INCOME OF MORE THAN `63 LACS. ITS TOTAL TURN OVER IS MORE THAN `33CRORES. THERE CANNOT BE ANY OCCASION TO INDULGE IN SUCH TYPE OF ACTIVITIES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE MADE THE ADDITION SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE DIT (INVESTIGATION). 3. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSES SING OFFICER WHICH CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03-04, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF `91,38,190/-. AN ASSE SSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) ON 30.12.2005 AT AN INCOME OF `94,71,730/-. ON THE BASIS OF THE SIMILAR INFORMAT ION SUPPLIED BY THE DIT(INV.), THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ALSO. LEARNED DIT (INV.) HAS INFORMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF `7,16,700/- FROM M/S NOUMA N EXIM TRADING COMPANY. ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED ITS P OSITION AND LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPL ANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN REASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 4 143(3) READS WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT . THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 22.11.2010. ON THE STRENG TH OF THIS ORDER, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSM ENT YEAR ACCEPTED THAT M/S NOUMAN EXIM TRADING COMPANY WAS A N EXISTING ENTITY WHO HAD PURCHASED SAREES AND SUITS FROM THE ASSESSEE. THERE CANNOT BE ANY OCCASION TO GIVE DIF FERENT TREATMENT IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE FURTHER CONT ENDED THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CONSIDER ED ALL THESE ASPECTS IN DETAIL AND THEREAFTER DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAS SOLD SAREES AND SUITS TO M/ S NOUMAN EXIM TRADING COMPANY WHO WAS AN EXPORT FIRM RUN BY LATE MOHD. NOUMAN. IT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES. THE ENTRIES REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ARE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR SALE OF GOODS BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CURRENT ACCOUN T DETAILS OF NOUMAN EXPORT, ITS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUM BER WITH THE DEPARTMENT, AND WHERE IT WAS ASSESSED. MO HD. NOUMAN HAS DIED SIX MONTHS BACK. ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO LOCATE HIS SON WHO CONFIRMED THAT HIS FATHER WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT AND USED TO MAKE PURCHASES FROM THE ASSESSEE. AS AGAINST THIS MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT POSSESSING ANYTHING EXCEPT AN INFORMATION SUPPL IED BY 5 DIT(INV.). THAT INFORMATION COULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR STARTING THE INVESTIGATION, BUT THAT CANNOT BE TREATED AS GOSPEL TRUTH. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A), THE DEFECTS IN THAT INFORMATION. THESE ASPECTS HAV E BEEN NOTICED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AT PAGES 4 TO 6 OF THE IM PUGNED ORDER. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE D ETAILS, COUPLED WITH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003-04, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO INTERF ERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.07.2011. SD/- SD/- ( K.G. BANSAL ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 08.07.2011. NS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).
