Anamika Sharma, Angul V. ITO, Ward-2, Dhenkanal

ITA 373/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5432 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 373 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 2010 ANAMIKA SHARMA, W/O BINOD KUMAR SHARMA, PROP. M/S. SRIRAM SYNDICATE, AT: FIRST GATE, TALCHER. VS. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL. PAN/GIR NO. ATJPS 0937 Q (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.K.MISHRA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 16 /08 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 /08 / 2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR , DATED 4.7.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,90,184/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LIABILITY OF RS.5, 9 0,184 / - PAYABLE TO MAHANADI COAL FIELD (MCL) AGAINST PURCHASE OF COAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS 2 ITA NO.373/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 2010 ASKED TO EXPLAIN HOW MCL WAS THE CREDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT SELLS COAL THROUGH AUCTIONS/TENDERS AGAINS T ADVANCE PAYMENTS ONLY AND IT NEVER SELLS COAL ON CREDIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SUM OF RS.5,9 0 ,184/ - SHOWN AS LIABILITY TO MCL TOWARDS PURCHASE OF COAL AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 4. BEFORE THE CI T(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED COAL FROM MCL AFTER MAKING DUE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES, BUT DUE TO INSUFFICIENT FUND IN THE BANK, THE CHEQUE WAS RETURNED AND AGAIN CHEQUE/DRAFT WAS ISSUED AFTER 31 ST MARCH AND, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPELLED TO SHOW THE AMOUNT AS OUTSTANDING IN SUNDRY CREDITOR IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE SUBSEQUENT BANK ACCOUNT WILL BE LOOKED INTO, THE AMOUNT WAS PAID IMMEDIATELY IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2009. 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PRODUCED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MCL, BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, BANK STATEMENT OF THE YEAR AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE NEXT FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEAR TO P ROVE THAT THE CHEQUE OF ALLEGED SUM WAS BOUNCED BACK AND, THEREFORE, FRESH CHEQUE/DRAFT WAS ISSUED WHICH WAS ENCASHED IN THE NEXT FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE SUBSTANTIATED THE CLAIM BY PRODUCING THE PURCHASE BILLS, TRADING ACCOUNT, ETC. OPPORTUNITIES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME GIVEN ON DIFFERENT DATES BY HIM WERE NOT AVAILED AND THUS, SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF UNSUPPORTED WORDS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL, 3 ITA NO.373/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 2010 HE HELD THAT MEANINGFUL INTERFERENCE CANNOT BE MADE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. BEFORE ME, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE FILED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MCL FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2009 TO 31.3.2010, WHEREIN, ON 1.4.2009, THERE IS BROUGHT FORWARD OPENING BALANCE OF RS.5,90,184/ - AND THERE IS PAY MENT THROUGH CHEQUE ON 28.8.2009 DRAWN ON UCO BANK VIDE CH NO.423059 FOR RS.5,00,000/ - AND CHEQUE NO.423067 FOR RS.90,184/ - OF THE SAME BANK ON 3.11.2009. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENCLOSED THE BANK STA TEMENT OF UCO BANK EVIDENCING CLEAR OF ALL TH E CHEQUES ON THE DATES STATED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED THAT IN VIEW OF ABOVE EVIDENCES, THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS GENUINE AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 7. LD D.R. VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCES NOW FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HENCE, THE ADDITION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT SHOULD BE THE ENDEAVOUR OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CORRECT ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) THAT CANNOT BE A GROUND T O NOT TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCES NOW FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE CORRECTLY AND COMPLETELY. I AM ALSO ALIVE TO THE FACT THAT EVIDENCES NOW PRODUCED 4 ITA NO.373/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 2010 HAVE TO BE VERIFIED, WHICH SHOULD BE DONE ONLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN TH E INTEREST OF RENDERING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, I ACCEPT THE EVIDENCES NOW FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT HIM TO VERIFY THE SAME TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO M CL OF RS.5,90,1 84/ - IS GENUINE OR NOT AND RE - ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 /08 /2017. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 18 /08 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : ANAMIKA SHARMA, W/O BINOD KUMAR SHARMA, PROP. M/S. SRIRAM SYNDICATE, AT: FIRST GATE, TALCHER. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL. 3. THE CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT , - 2, BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//