ITO, ward - 2(3), Belgavi V. Shri Rafiq M Patwegar, Belgavi

ITA 383/PAN/2017

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the order of the CIT(A), Belagavi, which had deleted the addition of Rs.1,89,08,782 to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming that the purchases from sundry creditors were unproved. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities to provide details and had substantiated the transactions, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the inconsistency in the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the assessee's turnover and profit figures while disputing the credibility of the creditors.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136837 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/PAN./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2 (3), 2 nd Floor, Khimjibhai Commercial Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belagavi. vs. Shri Rafiq M. Patwegar, Prop. Yaseen Minerals, At/Post : Londa, TQ. Khanapur Dist. Belagavi. PAN ASMPP6672M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth For Assessee : -None- Date of Hearing : 07.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-2011, arises against the CIT(A), Belagavi’s order in case no.ITA.No.44/BGM/2013-14, dated 16.10.2017, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA.No.383/PAN./2017 1) “The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was given as much as eight opportunities to file the details like books of accounts, vouchers, confirmations from the sundry creditors, etc. Inspite of sufficient opportunities, the assessee failed to produce any creditors before the Assessing Officer for examination but also failed to produce any confirmations from the creditors. 2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO has added sundry creditors towards purchases as unproved to the extent of Rs.1,89,08,782/- as the nature of business is trading in iron ore which is not available in market freely and if that be the case, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered that there cannot be any URD Creditors. 3) The ld.CIT(A) has also erred in not appreciating the fact that it is well settled that in order to discharge the onus, he assessee must provide – (i) the identity of the creditor; (ii) the capacity of the creditor to advance money and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. Only after the assessee has adduced the evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shits to the department. 4) The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proving the creditors. 3 ITA.No.383/PAN./2017 5) For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order of the Id. CIT(A) may be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer may be restored.” 3. Mr. Shrikanth next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion deleting sundry creditors addition of Rs.1,89,08,782/- representing assessee’s alleged purchases as under : 4 ITA.No.383/PAN./2017 4. Mr. Shrikanth vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the assessee’s claim regarding sundry creditors of Rs.1,89,08,782/- in issue. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact as recorded by the learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had not disputed either the assessee’s turnover in regular business activity or the profits declared in the corresponding books of account. Faced with this peculiar situation wherein the learned Assessing Officer’s foregoing action appears to be mutually contradictory, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned addition based on the entire rejection of the sundry creditors list involving the sum of Rs.1,89,08,782/- sought to be revived by the Revenue in it’s sole substantive grievance raised before us. 5. Mr. Shrikanth lastly argued that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer. We find no reason to accept the Revenue’s instant latter argument as well once the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee’s turnover figures as well as profit ratio declared in the regular books of account. Rejected accordingly. 6. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. 5 ITA.No.383/PAN./2017 Order pronounced in the open court on 09.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [G.D. PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 09 th August, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Belagavi. 4. The JCIT, Range-2, Belagavi. 5. D.R. ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.