M.A.Steels P.Ltd, Palakkad V. DCIT, Palakkad

ITA 454/COCH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58184 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Agreed addition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKARA N, AM I.T.A NOS. 115&116/COCH/2009 & 454/COCH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 TO 2005-06 M.A.STEELS (P) LTD., MENONPARA ROAD, NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. [PAN:AADCM 2863R] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 04/01/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 6 /01/2012 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, AM THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-V, KOCHI, AND THEY ARE RELATED TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 2003-04 TO 2005-06. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 74 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLA INING THEREIN THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE AFFIDA VIT, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSEE HAS SENT A LETTER DATED 03-01-2012 BY FAX TO THE REGISTRY, WHERE IN I T IS REQUESTED THAT THE BENCH MAY DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS ON MERITS OF THE CASE. ACCO RDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE I.T.A. NOS. 115 & 116 /COCH/2009 & 454/COCH/2010 2 APPEALS EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUE S URGED IN THESE THREE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE, THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS C OMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR IN THIS REGARD, WHO PLA CED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, W E NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DISPUTING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ASSESSMENT YEARS UNSECURED LOANS (IN `) PROFIT ON UNACCOUNTED SALES(IN `) 2003-04 68,35,000 2004-05 8,50,000 25,12,000 AGR EED 2005-06 17,09,100 30,36,000 AGREED 5. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF U NSECURED LOANS, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED UPON FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. S INCE THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF A ND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF BALANCE AMOUNT AS MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. FRO M THE CAREFUL READING OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY HAS TAKEN A JUDICIOUS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND ACCORDINGLY, GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF IN T HOSE CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE COULD PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDITS. IN RES PECT OF THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A), NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE US IN ORDER TO COMPEL US TO INTERFERE WITH HIS DECISION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE ON A CCOUNT OF PROFIT FROM UNACCOUNTED SALES. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE NOTICE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO THE SAID ADDITION BEFORE THE ADDL. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY TH E PROFIT FROM UNACCOUNTED SALES HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY GIVING TELESCOPING BENEFIT OF THE SAME AGAINST THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ACCEPTED T HE IMPUGNED ADDITION BEFORE THE I.T.A. NOS. 115 & 116 /COCH/2009 & 454/COCH/2010 3 ASSESSING OFFICER/ADDL. CIT, NORMALLY SUCH KIND OF AGREED ADDITIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE AGITATED IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED TO SHOW WHY THE ASSESSEE IS RETRACTING FROM HIS STAND. HENCE, WE D O NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 6TH JANUARY, 201 2. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 6TH JANUARY, 2012 GJ COPY TO: 1. M.A.STEELS (P) LTD., MENONPARA ROAD, NIDA, KANJI KODE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRICHUR. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE .