STATUS EXPORT, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 15(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3887/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 388719914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH L PATHADE
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVKI SHAH
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND B. R.BASKARAN (AM) . . , . . , ./I.T.A. NO.3887/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 ) M /S STATUS EXPORT 2 ND FLOOR, STATUS HOUSE, LATHIA RUBBAR GALLY, OPP MAHAVIR INDL. ESTATE, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400072 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15(2)(4), MATRU MANDIR, 1 ST FLOOR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400007 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( !' / RESPONDENT) ./ #$ ./PAN/GIR NO. : ABAFS9872M % / APPELLANT BY : MS.DEVKI SHAH !' & % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAKASH L PATHADE ' & ( ) / DATE OF HEARING : 10.7.2014 *+ & ( ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10. 7.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-26, MUMBAI AND IT RE LATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND ALSO U/S 40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT OF CLOTH. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.4,45,200/- FROM A PERSON NAMED SHRI SHENOY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DET AILS RELATING TO THE SAME, THE I.T.A. NO.3887/MUM/2012 2 AO ASSESSED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, APPARENTLY U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS INCURRED A SUM OF RS.46,10,146/- TOWARDS JOB WORK EMBROIDERY CHARGES. THE AO ASKED FOR PARTY- WISE DETAILS AND ALSO THE DETAILS RELATING TO DEDUC TION OF TAX AT SOURCE. SINCE NO DETAIL WAS FURNISHED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLO WED THE ABOVE SAID CLAIM BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE AC T. 4. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD C IT(A) CONFIRMED BOTH THE ADDITIONS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY F URTHER DETAILS. AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION RENDERED BY LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE ON BOTH THE ISSUES CITED ABOVE. 5. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.4,45,200/- U /S 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LD A.R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDIT ION WITHOUT SUMMONING THE CREDITOR TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS. HOWEVER, WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DE TAILS, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY T O FURNISH THE DETAILS. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF TH E ACT, THE LD A.R CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM WITHOUT CALLING FOR DETAILS. HOWEVER, WHEN THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO WAS PO INTED OUT, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF EMBROIDERY CHAR GES IS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 6. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILE D ANY FURTHER DETAILS BEFORE US. NORMALLY IN SUCH KIND OF SITUATION, BOTH THE A DDITIONS NEED TO BE CONFIRMED. I.T.A. NO.3887/MUM/2012 3 HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD SH OW THAT THE SAME IS NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE NATURE OF DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED ENTIRE AMOUNT OF EMBROID ERY JOB WORK CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS SUBMITTED BY LD A.R, T HE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IS REMOTE, MEANING THEREBY, THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT CARRYING PROPER EXAMINATION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, BOTH THE ISSUES URGED B EFORE US REQUIRE FRESH EXAMINATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F LD CIT(A) ON BOTH THE ISSUES AND RESTORE THEM TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRE CTION TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AFRESH. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAIL BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE US. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS THAT WAS / MAY BE CALLED FOR BY THE AO AND ALSO DIRECT IT TO FULLY CO-OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD AVAIL THIS O PPORTUNITY WITHOUT FAIL AND IN CASE OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO CO-OPERATE W ITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AO IS AT FULL LIBERTY TO MAKE BOTH THE ADDITIONS AG AIN. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 10TH JULY, 2014 . *+ ' , -. / 0 10TH JULY, 2014 + & 2 3 SD SD ( . . / H.L. KARWA) ( . . , / B.R. BASKARAN ) / PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ' MUMBAI: 10 TH JULY,2014. I.T.A. NO.3887/MUM/2012 4 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' 5( ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. ' 5( / CIT CONCERNED 5. 67 2 !(8 , ) 8 , - ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. 2 9 : / GUARD FILE. ; ' / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY < # (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ) 8 , - ' /ITAT, MUMBAI