ACIT, Moradabad V. M/s. U.S. Foods (P) Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

ITA 3758/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4791 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIR R S MEENA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Valuation report
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3758/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ACIT, CIRCLE I, VS. M/S. U.S. FOODS (P) LTD., MORADABAD DELHI ROAD, GAJRAULA, AMROHA (U.P.) PAN: AAACU5149H (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K SAMPATH, ADV., DEPARTMENT BY: SHIR R S MEENA, CIT DR ORDER PER U B S BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 26.03.2013 RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHEREIN, FOLLOWING THREE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. IN THE FACTS NEW DELHI CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT(A), BAREILLY HAS ERRED IN LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.26,52,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RIGHTLY AD DED TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY BUILDING. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. C IT(A), BAREILY HAS ERRED IN LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.26,52,000/- U/S 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961, WHICH WAS BASED ON REPORT OF DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE O RDER OF THE A.O. ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OFRS.26,52,000/- U/S 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961, 1961 DESERVES TO BE RESTORED BY SETTING ASIDE THE O RDER OF CIT(A), BAREILLY ON THIS ISSUE. I.T.A. NO. 3758/DEL/2013 2 2. THE A.O., WHILE MAKING ADDITION U/S 69 WITH RESP ECT TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FACTORY BUILDING, HAS OBSERVED AS UND ER: IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING INVOLVED IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATIO N DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE FACTORY BUILDING IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY IT VIS--VIS THE VALUATION SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTM ENTAL VALUATION OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE DIFFERE NCE SO ARRIVED AT STOOD AT RS.26.52 LACS. THE SAME ISSUE HAD BEEN INVOLVED ALSO FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2002- 03 AND THEREFORE, COMPLETE FACTS ARE DISCLOSED IN D ETAIL WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE I. T. AC T, 1961 DATED 27 TH DEC. 2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. FOLLOWI NG THE SAME REASONS AND OBSERVATIONS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.26.52 LAC S IS HEREBY TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, DEPRECIATION ON THE AMOUNT ADDED IS TO BE ALLOWED. 3. THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE MATTER IN APPEAL AGAINS T THE ADDITION OF RS.26.52 LACS ON ADOPTION OF VALUATION REPORT OF TH E DVO AND LD. CIT(A) WHILE ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOLL OWING ITS OWN ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-0 2, 2002-03 AND 2003-04 THROUGH WHICH THE ADOPTION OF THE FIGURES OF DVO BY THE A.O. IN WORKING OUT UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT WAS NOT APPROVED TAKING THE SAME BASIS, OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE FACTS REMAINED THE SAME FOR THIS YEAR ALSO, THE ADDITION OF RS.26.52 LACS WAS DELETED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DEPARTMEN T HAS COME UP IN APPEAL AND CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) AND PLEADED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORING THAT OF THE A .O. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OUTSET , SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF U S FOODS P. LTD. VS DCIT IN I.T.A. NOS. 3322 & 3323/DEL/2008 AND DCIT VS U S FOODS P. LTD. IN I.T.A. NOS. 3244/DEL/2 008 AND 301/DEL/2009, ITAT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A) WHILE DECIDING THE I.T.A. NO. 3758/DEL/2013 3 APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED T HAT SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS IDENTICAL A ND LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WHICH ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN UPHELD, THEREFORE, IT IS A COVERED ISSUE A ND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. LD. A.R. HAS FILED A COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CASE. 6. LD. D.R. HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 7. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERIN G THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CAS E IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 AND 2003-04 IN WHICH THE A.O. MADE SIMILAR ADDITION WHICH HAVE BEE N DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) WHOSE ACTION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY SHE TRIB UNAL, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE GETS DISMIS SED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DEC., 2013. SD./- SD./- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 13 TH DEC., 2013. SP. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI AR, ITAT, 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI