The ACIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Amik Printers, Ahmedabad

ITA 3059/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 305920514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, CIRCLE-12, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS M/S. AMIK PRINTERS, KAMKORIWALA COMPOUND, NR. RAM RAHIM TEKRA, B/H CALICO MILLS, BEHRAMPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN: AADFA5545M (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.F. JAIN, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 26-03-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-04- 2015 / ORDER PER : RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANC E OF REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XX DATED 27-08-2010 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE ITAT RULES, THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND AUGMENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LD. ITA NO. 3059/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 I.T.A NO. 3059/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. AMIK PRINTERS 2 CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 ,67,572/- APPEARING AGAINST THE NAME OF 5 PERSONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDE D BY THE AO WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDIT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RUNNING A PROPRIET ARY CONCERN IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. AMIK PRINTERS. HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-10-2005 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 10,69,779/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND N OTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ON SCRUTINY OF ACCOUNTS, IT REVEALED TO THE LD. AO THAT ASSESSEE H AD CREDIT ENTRIES, WHICH ARE APPEARING AGAINST THE NAMES OF13 PERSONS. HE T OOK NOTE OF THESE ENTRIES AS UNDER:- SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY DEPOSITED AMOUNT AND INTEREST THEREON I.E. CLOSING BALANCE (RS.) 1 A.K. TRADERS 50,000/- 2 GURUMUKHDAS DULHANOMAL PRITMANI 2,80,000/- 3 DULHANMAL A. PRINTMANI 2,00,000/- 4 SURESH LALCHAND 1,48,674/- 5 S.K. SHAH 55,082/- 6 NIRAJ DAMODAR GOPALANI 95,000/- 7 R.V. FINANCE 6,00,000/- 8 REHANDIBAI NANIKRAM 50,000/- 9 MOHANLAL ROCHIRAM (HUF) 98,898/- 10 KAUSHLYA G. PRITMANI 2,00,000/- 11 MENGHIBEN DULHANOMAL PRITMANI 1,20,000/- 12 VIDHYA VASUDEV AAVTARMANI 1,98,980/- I.T.A NO. 3059/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. AMIK PRINTERS 3 13 PINKI RAMESHCHANDRA PRITMANI 1,00,000/- TOTAL 21,96,634 3. THE LD. AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION IN TABULAR F ORM, EXHIBITING ADDRESSES, PAN NO. AND OTHER DETAILS. HOWEVER, THE SE DETAILS DID NOT SATISFY THE AO, HENCE HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 21 ,96,634/- U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT). 4. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). HE REITERATED HIS CONTENTION AS WERE R AISED BEFORE AO. HE ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN, BANK ST ATEMENTS, CONFIRMATIONS AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF THE CREDITORS. LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THE REMAND REPORT, LD. CIT(A) HAD DEL ETED THE ADDITION EXCEPT APPEARING THE CREDITS AGAINST THE NAME OF M/ S A.K. TRADERS, S.K. SHAH, NIRAJ DAMODAR GOPALANI AND REHANDIBAI NANIKRA M, OUT OF THE LIST EXTRACTED ABOVE. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 68 OF THE ACT CONTEM PLATES THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE M AINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATIO N ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE AO, SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGE D TO INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. NO D OUBT, CREDIT ENTRIES ARE I.T.A NO. 3059/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. AMIK PRINTERS 4 AVAILABLE AGAINST THE NAMES OF 13 PERSONS IN THE BO OKS OF ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HE IS SUPPOSED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BOOKS. SECTION 68 OF THE ACT PUTS AN OBLIGATION UPON THE A SSESSEE TO PROVE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UP ON THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS FILED NAMES AND ADDRESS, PAN NO., COPY OF BANK ACCO UNT, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE CORRESPONDING PERIODS OF THE CRE DITORS. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. LD. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS OF INDIVIDUAL CREDITOR IN SE RIATIM. LD. CIT(A) ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION QUA FOUR CREDITORS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. 6. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT NO DISCUSSI ON HAS BEEN MADE AS FAR AS FIVE CREDITORS ARE CONCERNED NAMELY SURES H LALCHAND, R.V. FINANCE, MOHANLAL ROCHIRAM (HUF), MENGHIBEN DULHANO MAL PRITMANI AND PINKI RAMESHCHANDRA PRITMANI WE FIND THAT AS FAR A S APPROACH OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS CONCERNED, IT IS IN CONSONAN CE WITH THE REQUIREMENT PROVIDED IN SECTION 68. THERE IS NO CONFUSION IN T HE MIND OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE ANALYZING THE DETAIL OF EACH CREDIT OR. LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS OF THE OPINION THAT IDENTITY OF CREDIT OR HAS TO BE PROVED. SIMILARLY, THE TRANSACTION HAS TO BE PROVED AS GENU INE AS WELL AS CREDITORS SHOULD BE CREDITWORTHINESS. WHILE EXAMINING THE DE TAIL OF THE FIRST CREDITOR NAMELY GURUMUKHDAS DULHANOMAL A PRITMANI, LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS OBSERVED THAT MONEY WAS PAID THROUGH ACCOUNT PA YEE CHEQUE. SHRI GURUMUKHDAS DULHANOMAL A PRITMANI HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A CHEQUE TO THE ASS ESSEE. HE WAS A INCOME TAX PAYER AND THE COPY OF THE RETURN WAS ALS O SUBMITTED. IT IS I.T.A NO. 3059/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. AMIK PRINTERS 5 PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THERE ARE 13 CREDITORS. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION QUA FOUR, MEANING THEREBY, ADDITIONS H AVE BEEN DELETED QUA 9 CREDITORS. REVENUE IS CHALLENGING THE DELETION QUA FIVE CREDITORS ONLY. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT DISCUSSION WAS NOT MADE BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO FIVE. IN OUR O PINION, WHEN LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MADE OBSERVATION ABOUT 13 C REDITORS THEN IT IS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY M UST HAVE A GLANCE ON ALL THE DETAILS. IT IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO DID N OT MAKE SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS RE MAND REPORT IN RESPECT OF THESE FIVE CREDITORS. THEREFORE, AFTER GOING THROU GH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. THI S APPEAL IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. IT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-04-2015 SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 21/04/2015 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,