Income Tax Officer-5(1), Kanpur V. Shri Amit Kanodia, Kanpur

ITA 331/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92225 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PINKI MAHAWAR

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 331 /LKW/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 08 ITO 5 (1), KANPUR VS. SHRI AMIT KANODIA, 52/03, JAI JANKI KUNJ, SHAKKARPATTI, NAYA GANJ, KANPUR. PAN:AJAPK6649N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. PINKI MAHAWAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 01/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /07/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. T HIS IS REVENUE S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT( A ) - II KANPUR DATED 13 .0 1 .201 4 FOR A.Y. 2007 08 . 2. THE REVENUE E HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69 OF RS. 46,32,000/ - BY TREATING THE CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AS TRADING RECEIPTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3 . LEARNED D R OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A) . HE ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) IS IN LINE WITH THE REMAND REPORT 2 AND THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE A.O. AND FOR FILING THIS UNNECESSARY APPEAL, COST SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON THE A.O. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS . WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS STATED IN HIS ORDER THAT FROM THE REMAND REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ORDER OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS TREATED SIMILAR CREDITS AS TRADING RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF SUGAR SALE AND APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 5%. LEARNED CIT (A) DECIDED THE ISSUE ON SAME LINE AND COMPUTED INCOME @ 5% OF SUCH TRADING RECEIPTS AND AFTER REDUCING THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 45,597/ - . CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF BALANCE INCOME OF RS. 177,003/ - . SINCE, THE ORDER OF CIT (A ) IS IN LINE WITH THE STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O. IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). REGARDING THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPOSING COST ON THE A.O., WE FEEL THAT IMPOSITION OF COST IN THE FACTS OF TH E PRESENT CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KU MAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDI CIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 8 /0 7 /201 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR