Sai Lubricants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 347/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 34720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHIT SACHDEVA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.347 /DEL/201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2 007 - 08 ) SAI LUBRICANTS PVT. L T D., H - 25, SOUTH EXTN. - 1, NEW DELHI - 110049 P AN - AABCS5879D (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD - 7(2), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. MOHIT SACHDEVA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH.SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 0 8 . 11.2012 OF CIT(A) - X , N EW DELHI PERTAINING TO 200 7 - 0 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR . T H E RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS. 28,580/ - VIDE HIS RETURN DATED 15.11.2007 HOWEVER THE SAME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) ETC. INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS ADVOCATE HOWEVER S UBSEQUENTLY NO ONE APPEARED. AS A RESULT THEREOF THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONCLUDED AT AN INC OME OF RS.11,96,378/ - U/S 144/143 OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ADDITION OF RS.95,000/ - SHOWN AS UNS EC URED LOAN ; IN REGARD TO WHICH NO DETAILS FOR THE LOANS WAS PROVIDED BEFORE THE AO AND THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN FROM MS. USHA JAIN WHEREIN ALSO CONFIRMATIONS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID PERSONS WERE NOT PROVIDED. THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE ANY CONFIRMATION OR DETAILS AT THIS STAGE SINCE THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PROVIDED BEFORE THE AO. IN THE SAID BACKGROUND CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE AND CONFIRME D IT IS SEEN THAT T HE SPECIFIC 2 I.T.A .NO. - 347 /DEL/2013 EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE ADVANCED: - 4. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ERRED IN ADDING BACK RS.95,000/ - ON ACCOUNT NON DISCLSORUE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE SAID LOANS WERE TAKEN FROM SH.O M PARKASH AGGARWAL, MANJU LUTHRA, HARBAJAN SINGH, RADHA KRISHAN AND MEENU WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND REFLECTED IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO REGARDING NON DISCLOSER IS NOT CORRECT AND UNCA LLED FOR. ON SAME GROUNDS ADDITION OF RS.200,000/ - WAS MADE WITHOUT SEEN THAT IT WAS RETURNS TO MISS. USHA JAIN DURING THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. CONFIRMATION OF ALL THE ABOVE ARE ALSO ENCLOSED FOR READY - REFERENCE. 2. IN VIEW OF THE S E PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO TAKE FRESH EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND DECIDE THE ISSUE BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. T HE LD. AR UNDERTAKES THAT THE OPPORTUNITIES SO PROVIDED SHALL NOT BE WA STED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE DIS CRETION SO EXERCISED IN THE INTEREST S OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE ABUSED. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OF JANUARY 2015 . SD/ - SD/ - ( B.C.MEENA ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 / 01 /201 5 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI