Plutus Industries P. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi

ITA 4211/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6555 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHMA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS PREM LATA BANSAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, F: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4211/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YE AR : 2012-13 M/S PLUTUS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. C-14, GROUND FLOOR, TAGORE GARDEN EXTN, NEW DELHI-110027 PANAAECP3075F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-20(1), ROOM NO.218, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MRS. PREMLATA BANSAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUSHMA SINGH CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.04.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.04.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 25.04.2017 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-36, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR-2012-13. 2. ALTHOUGH A NUMBER OF GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THESE ALL RELATE TO THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.1,36,39,191/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT/TRADING OF MOBILE PHONES. IT FILED ITS ITA NO.4211/DEL/2017 2 RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2012, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S.1,70,200/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNTIN G TO RS.10,41,999/- FROM SH. AKSHAY MAHAJAN (DIRECTOR), RS.1,24,97,1 92/- FROM SH. ANUJ MAHANJAN (DIRECTOR) AND RS.1,04,789/- FROM SH. DE V RAJ MAHAJAN (DIRECTOR). HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RELEVANT DET AILS LIKE ITR, SAVING BANK ACCOUNT COPY AND COPY OF TDS ETC. IN RESPECT OF TH E DIRECTORS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RELEVANT DETAILS. TH EREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DIRECTORS/LOAN CREDITORS AND GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ALTHOUGH, THE ASSESSEE PROVED TO THE SATIS FACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE DIRECTORS, HO WEVER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIAT E TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DIRECTORS/LOAN CREDITORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE, THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,36, 39,191/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A), THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY HER SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) AND THE PAP ER BOOK FILED ON ITA NO.4211/DEL/2017 3 BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOU S DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,36,39,191/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNSECUR ED LOAN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THREE DIRECTORS ON THE GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCES TO HIS SATISFACTION REGARDIN G CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE THREE DIRECTORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTIONS. WE FIND THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS . IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUN ITY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) REGARDING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DR THAT DESPITE FIVE OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HER AND FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE TH E CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISS UE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GRANT ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FAC T AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE WITHOUT SEEKING ANY ADJOURNMENT U NDER ANY PRETEXT ITA NO.4211/DEL/2017 4 FAILING WHICH, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS AP PROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.04.2021. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DELHI/DATED- 16.04.2021 F{X~{T COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI