M/s. Rita Plastics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3000/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8690 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARENDER KUMAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3000/D/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3000/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S RITA PLASTICS PVT. LTD., A-53, VISHAL ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110027 (PAN: AABCR3215J) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(4), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHARENDER KUMAR, CA DEPARTMENT BY: MS RINKU SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.07.2019 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A)-7, NEW DELHI DATED 25.04.2016 PER TAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - (1) THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-7 , NEW DELHI IS ARBITRARY, BIASED AND BAD IN LAW AND IN FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN SO FAR AS IT CONFI RMS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (2) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 45,46,161/- UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING EVIDENCE BROU GHT ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S ESTABLISHING THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF THE CREDITO RS. ITA NO. 3000/D/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 2 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT BY INCORRECTLY CONCL UDING THAT THE LIABILITIES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS AT 31.0 3.2011 DID NOT SUBSIST IN SPITE OF THE CLINCHING EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF TRADING LIABILITY. (3) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR DE LETE THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAN UFACTURING OF CORRUGATED BOARDS AND BOXES. THE RETURN OF INCO ME WAS FILED DECLARING THE INCOME AT NIL AND AFTER INITIALLY PRO CESSING THE RETURN U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER CALLED 'THE ACT'), THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THERE WAS A REMISSION OF LIABILITY U/S 41(1) TO THE TUNE OF RS. 45,46,161/- AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE CON FIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS REGARDING THE SAME. HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN THIS REG ARD NOR WERE ANY SUPPORTING BILLS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO ADD THIS AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SOM E OTHER ITA NO. 3000/D/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 3 ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDIT IONS WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT FILE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WITH RESPECT TO THE REMISSION OF LIABILITY U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. 2.1 NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TH IS TRIBUNAL AND HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). 2.2 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS INCORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BY INCORRECTLY CONCLUDING THAT THE LIABILITIES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 31.3.2011 DID NOT SUBSIST ALTHOUGH CLINCHING EVIDENCE HAD BEE N FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH TH E EXISTENCE OF THE TRADE LIABILITY. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(A), THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF REMISSION OF TRADE LIABILITY. 3.0 IN RESPONSE, THE LD. SR. DR VEHEMENTLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.1 ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US AGREED THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE LOWER ITA NO. 3000/D/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 4 AUTHORITIES FOR RE-EXAMINATION AND RE-APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES. 3.2 THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND THE CONCURRENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DEEM IT APPROPR IATE TO RESTORE THE FILE TO THE OFFICE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(A) TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE EVI DENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MIGHT FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND , THEREAFTER, PASS AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING D UE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAN DS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (SUDHANSHU S RIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH JULY, 2019 GS ITA NO. 3000/D/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT(A) 4) CIT 5) DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P S/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER