M/s. Modern Car Scan Centre Pvt. Ltd., Hisar V. DCIT, Karnal

ITA 4681/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 468120114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Notional interest
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - II , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDH U , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4681 TO 4686/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001 - 02 TO 2006 - 07 ITA NO. 4687 TO 469 2 /DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 02 TO 200 6 - 0 7 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)(CENTRAL), GURGAON DATED 16.06.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 TO 2006 - 07 AND 2001 - 02 TO 200 6 - 0 7 . 2. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER BECAUSE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL/ COMMON. THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE I AM DISPOSING THESE APPEALS BY PASSING ONE CONSOLIDATED ORDER. MODERN CARD SCAN CENTRE PVT. LTD, C/O PARMOD MITTAL & CO, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 113, GREEN SQUARE MARKET, OLD GOVT. COLLEGE GROUND, HISAR. PAN:AABCM0898E VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) MITTAL SALES, PVT. LTD., C/O PARMOD MITTAL & CO, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 113, GREEN SQUARE MARKET, OLD GOVT. COLLEGE GROUND, HISAR. PAN:AABCM0898E VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ROHTAS K UMAR VERMA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. SUDHIRRANJAN SENAPATI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.08.2015 PAGE 2 OF 4 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ALMOST IDENTICAL G ROUNDS IN ALL THE APPEALS EXCEPT DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF ADDITION IN DISPUTE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE I AM REPRODUCING GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.4681/DEL/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 IN THE CASE OF MODERN CAR SCAN CENTRE PVT. LTD . VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AS UNDER: - 1). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN ARRIVING AT THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT OF SECTION 153C WHERE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STANDS COMPLETED BEFORE SEARCH. 2). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN DECIDING GROUND NO.2 WHERE IT WAS PLEADED IN WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT NO SATISFACTION HAD BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C. 3). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.229074/ - ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE EAR NED ON INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO SHREE GANESH ROLLING MILLS (INDIA) LTD. AND NANDINI JEWELLERS. 4). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8400/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD SUGGESTING THAT NO SALARY WAS P AID. 5). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN NOT DECIDING GROUND NO.5 TREATING IT AS CONSEQUENTIAL WHEREAS IT WAS CHALLENGED THAT INTEREST UNDER SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 234B SHOULD BE CHARGED IN PLACE OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 234B SINCE IT WAS NOT ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT. AND IN ITA NO.4687/DEL/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 IN THE CASE OF MITTAL SALES, PVT. LTD VS. DCIT AS UNDER: - 1). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN ARRIVING AT THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT OF SECTION 153C WHERE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STANDS COMPLETED BEFORE SEARCH. 2). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN DECIDING GROUND NO.2 WHERE IT WAS PLEADED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT NO SATISFACTION HAD BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C. 3). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.54600/ - ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE EARNED ON INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO SHRI B.D.JINDAL AND NANDINI JEWELLERS. 4). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS.18000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SAL ARY PAID TO SHRI RAJESH KUMAR WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD SUGGESTING THAT NO SALARY WAS PAID TO HIM. 5). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.37000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ONE CREDITOR IN THE NAME OF CHANDU LAL MOHAN LAL, WHERE NO AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, ONLY OPENING BALANCE WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM LAST YEAR. 6). THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN NOT DECIDING GROUND NO.6 TREATING IT AS CONSEQUENTIAL WHEREAS IT WAS CHALLENGED THAT INTEREST UNDER SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 234B SHOULD BE CHARGED IN PLACE OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 234B SINCE IT WAS NOT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. PAGE 3 OF 4 4 . THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING SHRI ROHTAH K UMAR VERMA, CA, LD AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS THE GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEAL AND STATED THAT LD CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED GROUND NO.5 TAKEN BEFORE HIM IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 234B OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 . HE PLEADED THAT INTEREST UNDER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 234B SHOULD BE CHARGED IN PLACE OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 234B SINCE IT WAS NOT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. HE ALSO DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS THE GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. SECONDLY HE ARGUED THAT THE LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND DECIDED THE ISSUE S IN DISPUTE IN HURRY MAN N ER . HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME A FRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6 . LD DR STRONGLY OPPOSE D THE REQUESTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT THE LD FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE , THERE IS NO NEED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE LD CIT(A) , BUT AS REGARD TO NON - ADJUDICATING ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.5 HE H AS NOT TAKEN ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALONG WITH THE RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH ME . I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.5 I.E. CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B(1) OF THE ACT IN PLACE OF SECTION 234B(3) OF THE ACT PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM . AFTER PERUSING THE IMPUG NED ORDERS I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. KEEPING IN VIEW , NONE - ADJUDICATING OF GROUND NO.5 I.E. CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B(1) OF TH E ACT IN PLACE OF SECTION 234B(3) OF THE ACT. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE PAGE 4 OF 4 ISSUES IN DISPUTE REQUIRE ADJUDICATION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE SETTING ASIDE TO THE LD CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. ITA NO S . 4681 TO 4686/DEL/2014 AND ITA NO S . 4687 TO 469 2 /DEL/2014 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH AUGUST , 2015 . - S D / - ( H.S.SIDHU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 4 TH AUGUST , 2015 AKK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR