Md. Ghazi Salahuddin, Hooghly V. ITO, WD-1(3), HOOGHLY, Hooghly

ITA 344/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4927 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHAYAS UDDIN
• Assessee Lawyers: V N DUTTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 6

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 344/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 344 /KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 MD. GHAZI SALAHUDDIN,.............................. ........................APPELLANT DELHI ROAD, DANKUNI, HOOGHLY-712 311 [PAN : APKPS 6335 P] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ............................RESPONDENT WARD-1(3), HOOGHLY, NOW WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY, RUPMATI MAHAL, KHADINAMORE, CHINSURAH, HOOGHLY-712 102 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI V.N. DUTTA, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE MD. GHAYAS UDDIN, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 09, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 13, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKATA DAT ED 05.01.2016 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED THEREIN READ AS UNDER:- (1) FOR THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.7,25,000/- BEING ADVANCE FROM THE PARTY, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUN ITY. (2) FOR THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.18,552/- AND RS.687/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE H EAD SUNDRY CREDITORS WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNI TY TO RECONCILE. I.T.A. NO. 344/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 4 (3) FOR THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.28,190/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD DISCOUNT RECEIVED WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO RECONCILE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THIS APPEAL. THE SAME ACCORDINGLY ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. APROPOS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1, THE RE LEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS CARRYING ON T HE BUSINESS AS RE-SELLER OF TYRES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 30.09.2009 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,48,910/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE BALANCE-SHEET THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIV ED ADVANCES OF RS.7,25,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE, THEREFORE, CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE ADDRESS O F THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE SAID ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED FROM THE RUNNING CUSTOMERS AGAINST SALE OF TYRES AND SINCE THE SAID CUSTOMERS COMPRISING MAINLY DRIVERS DID NOT HAVE ANY PERMANENT ADDRESS, HE COULD NOT PROVIDE THE SAME. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS SUBMISSION MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSSSEE TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE RELEVA NT ADVANCES IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATING TO RS.7,25,000/- WERE ADDED BY HIM TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 6 8. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPALS) CONFIRMED THE SAI D ADDITION AS THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF EXPL AINING THE NATURE AND I.T.A. NO. 344/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 3 OF 4 SOURCE OF ADVANCES FOUND CREDITED IN HIS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AT PAGE NO. 5 OF HIS PAPER BOOK THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF 32 PARTIES, FROM WHOM THE IMPUGNED ADVANCES AGGREGATIN G TO RS.7,25,000/- ARE CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED IN CASH. HE HAS CONTENDE D THAT THESE DETAILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE SAM E HAVING BEEN OBTAINED NOW, THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R ., NO REASON WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FURNISHING THESE DETAILS EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). ON THE OTHER HAND, A SPECIFIC STAND WAS TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) THAT THE ADVANCES HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE RUNNING CUSTOMERS MAI NLY DRIVERS, HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE THEIR ADDRESSES. THE ASSESSEE THUS NOW HAS CHANGED HIS STAND, WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. EVEN T HE ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES GIVEN AT PAGE NO. 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK APPEA R TO BE INCOMPLETE. AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE PRIMARY ONUS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE CONCERNED CREDITORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS IS ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 5 OF T HE PAPER BOOK FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THIS STAGE ARE NOT EVEN SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE SAME. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO GIVE ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE AND REJECTING THE REQUEST MAD E BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, I UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER I.T.A. NO. 344/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 4 OF 4 UNDER SECTION 68. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MAY 13, 2016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 13 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) MD. GHAZI SALAHUDDIN, DELHI ROAD, DANKUNI, HOOGHLY-712 311 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HOOGHLY, NOW WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY, RUPMATI MAHAL, KHADINAMORE, CHINSURAH, HOOGHLY-712 102 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKAT A (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.