R.L. Traders, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4495/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97052 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: K R MANJANI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Bogus loan

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO: 4495/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 M/S. R.L. TRADERS VS. ITO 2046, KATRA TOBACCO WARD-29(1) KHARI BAOLI NEW DELHI- 110 006 NEW DELHI (PAN AAAFR5508C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO: 5300/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 ITO VS. M/S. R.L. TRADERS WARD-29(1), ROOM NO. 103 2046, KATRA TOBACCO DRUM SHAPED BUILDING, KHARI BAOLI I.P. ESTATE NEW DELHI 110 006. NEW DELHI (PAN AAAFR5508C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY :SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING :23.7.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2015 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, NEW DELHI DATED 14.6.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08. ITA NOS. 4495,5300/DEL/2013 M/S. R.L. TR ADERS VS. ITO 2 2. FACTS IN BRIEF : ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE OF STARCH, OIL, GUM AND SALE OF HING AS P ER REQUIREMENT OF THE CUSTOMERS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2007.THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 30,70,270/-, BY ESTIMATING GROSS PROFIT @ 15% O N SALE. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER ON APPEAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AN D FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO AND O N APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) -II NEW DELHI, VIDE ORDER DATED 31.8.2010 DELETED THE A DDITION. THIS ORDER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT, F BENCH DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 17.6.2011 IN ITA NO. 4768 TO 4744 /DEL/2010. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR DELETED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. 3. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,34,584/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS. 1 LAC RECEIVED FROM M/S. PRADEEP KUMAR BANSAL, HUF AND INTEREST DEBITED THEREON. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO, AS THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE THE KARTA OF THE HUF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR BANSAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM M/S, PRADEEP KUMAR BANSAL HUF. INSTEAD HE REQUESTED THE AO TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO SHRI BANSAL U/S 131, OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH THE AO DID. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR BANSAL APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND STATED THAT HE HAS GIVEN ONLY A BOOK ENTRY OF LOAN OF RS. 50,000/- TO M/S. R.L. TRADERS, IN EXCHANGE OF CASH OF RS. 50,000/- AND THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS N OT A GENUINE TRANSACTION. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR BANSAL FURTHER STATED THAT HIS HUF HA S ALSO GIVEN A BOGUS LOAN ENTRY OF RS. 50,000/- TO M/S. R.L. TRADERS AND THAT HIS WIFE SMT. SHASHI BALA BANSAL, HAS ALSO GIVEN A BOGUS LOAN ENTRY OF RS. 1 LAC TO M/S. R.L. TRADERS DURING THE YEAR 2007- ITA NOS. 4495,5300/DEL/2013 M/S. R.L. TR ADERS VS. ITO 3 08. BASED ON THESE SUBMISSIONS THE ADDITION WAS MAD E BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESEE SHRI K.R.MANJAN I SUBMITS THAT STATEMENT OF SHRI BANSAL WAS RECORDED BEHIND HIS BACK AND THAT THE AS SESEE HAS FILED ALL DETAILS THAT WERE IN HIS CONTROL. HE CONTENDED THAT THE AO SUMMO NED SHRI P.K. BANSAL ORIGINALLY ON A PARTICULAR DATE AND DID NOT RECORD THE STATEME NT OF SHRI BANSAL ON THAT DATE, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PRESENT ON THAT DATE, AND LAT ER, JUST BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT ON 4.12.2009 HAS HASTLY RECORDED THE STA TEMENT ON 29.11.2009 AND MADE THE ADDITION, WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE ANY OPPORTUNITY. 5. HE SUBMITS THAT BY THE TIME LD. CIT(A) ASKE D FOR THE REMAND REPORT, SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR BANSAL PASSED AWAY AND HENCE HE COULD NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED. THUS HE PRAYS THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI BANSAL CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE. 6. LD. DR REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR BANSAL AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE IS FILED BY THE ASSESEE AND HENCE THE ADDITION IS TO BE CONF IRMED. 7. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND TH AT SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR BANSAL HAS BEEN SUMMONED ONLY ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE HIM NOR ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTION. . IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR BANSAL CLE ARLY STATES THAT ALL THESE LOANS ARE BOGUS LOANS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE V EHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT A STATEMENT FROM SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR BANSAL WAS NOT RE CORDED ON 21 ST JUNE, 2009 WHEN THE ORIGINAL SUMMONS WERE GIVEN, BUT ON A LATE R DATE BEHIND IS BACK. AS CROSS EXAMINATION WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE THE EVIDE NTIAL VALUE OF THE STATEMENT ITA NOS. 4495,5300/DEL/2013 M/S. R.L. TR ADERS VS. ITO 4 RECORDED BY THE AO ON 20.11.2009 CAN BE IGNORED. WH EN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI BANSAL IS IGNORED, THEN THE INITIAL BURDEN IS ON TH E ASSESEE TO PROVE THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE. THIS BURDEN IS NOT DISCHARGED BY THE AS SESSEE. HENCE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THIS ISSU E AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE REVENUE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETIO N OF ADDITION MADE, BY APPLYING GP RATE OF 15%. AS THIS ISSUE IS ADMITTEDLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE BY A DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESS EES OWN CASE ON THE VERY SAME FACTS FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE FIND NO R EASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HENCE WE DISMISS THI S APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 14 TH AUGUST, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR ITA NOS. 4495,5300/DEL/2013 M/S. R.L. TR ADERS VS. ITO 5 SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 10.8..2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 11.8.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER