Sh. Vinod Kumar Sachdeva, Ferozepur City. V. The Joint. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ferozepur

ITA 378/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8856 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Assessee Lawyers: R C KHANNA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 378(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 SHRI VINOD KUMAR SACHDEVA, PROP. M/S SACHDEVA SALES CORPORATION, PURANA BAZAR, FEROZEPUR CITY. PAN:ABVPS6678J VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-III, FEROZEPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. R.C. KHANNA (CA.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. R.K. SHARDA (DR.) DATE OF HEARING: 03.02.2016 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT: 18.02.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 22.03.2013, FOR THE ASST. Y EAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE TUNE OF RS.18,21,027/- FOR NON FURNISHING OF FIGURE OF OPENING AND CLOSING STO CK AND RS.2,63,485/- FOR UPHOLDING OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION WHICH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED DUE TO NON CONFIRMATIONS. THE APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION VIDE TRIBUNAL ORDER D ATED 04.09.2013, ITA NO.37 8 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 2 HOWEVER, THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS RECALLED VIDE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 15.01.2014 AND APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON MER ITS. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON FURNISHING OF BREAK UP OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCKS WHICH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL AS TH E FIGURE OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK WAS ALREADY THERE ON THE RECORD AND I N THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED ON PAPER BOOK PAGE 40 AND 41 WHERE QUANTITY WISE AND VALUE WISE CALCULATION OF STOCK WAS PLACED. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING T HE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IGNORING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTE D THAT ON THE COMMISSION PAID BY ASSESSEE TAX WAS DULY DEDUCTED A ND PAYEE SH. HARISH SACHDEVA HAD DECALRED SUCH INCOME IN HIS RET URN OF INCOME AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 69 AND 70 WHERE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF SH. HARISH SACHDEVA WAS PLACED. 5. THE LEARNED DR, HEAVILY PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON T HE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. ITA NO.37 8 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 3 7. AS REGARDS THE FIRST ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON FURNISHING OF BREAK UP OPENING AND CLOSING STOCKS WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 40 AND 41 HAD SUBMITTED THE QUANTITATIVE POSITION O F STOCK OF VARIOUS ITEMS AND VALUATION THEREOF. THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWE VER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MAINTAINED THAT NO SUCH BREAK UP WAS FI LED, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER BE RE-ADJ UDICATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE SHOULD PASS THE ORDER REGARDING ADDI TION IF ANY AFTER CONSIDERING THE BREAK UP OF CLOSING STOCK AND OPENI NG STOCK SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE AND IF NEED BE HE CAN REQUIRE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH FURTHER DETAIL IN THIS REGARD. 8. AS REGARDS THE OTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE R EGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAI D BY ASSESSEE TO SH. HARISH SACHDEVA, WE FIND THAT SH. HARISH SACHDEVA H AS DISCLOSED THIS INCOME AS HIS INCOME WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE COM PUTATION OF INCOME PLACED AT PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 69 AND 70. EVEN SH. HA RISH SACHDEVA HAS CLAIMED TDS OF RS.27,139/- TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED BY ASSESSEE. THIS FACT IS APPARENT FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO THIS ASPECT AND ME RELY BY STATING THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM PAR TIES ON WHOSE BEHALF SH. HARISH SACHDEVA WAS ABLE TO PROCURE ORDERS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE SECOND GRIEVANCE ALSO NEEDS TO BE RE-AD JUDICATED BY ASSESSING ITA NO.37 8 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 4 OFFICER WHO SHOULD PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER TAKI NG INTO ACCOUNT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY SH. HARISH SACHDEVA. NEED LES TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE WILL BE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED:18.02. 2016. /PK/PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.