M/s Royal Motors (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd., Gwalior V. A.C.UI.T., Cir. 2, Gwalior

ITA 479/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56885 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOHAIL AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, SMC, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.479/AGR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S ROYAL MOTORS (BHOPAL) PVT. LTD., VS. A.C.I .T., CIRCLE-2, NAKA CHANDRAWADNI, GWALIOR. JHANSI ROAD, GWALIOR. (PAN: AACCR 9444 C). ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MAHESH AGARWAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SOHAIL AKHTAR, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2012 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF 2,37,000/- MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AS BEING UNPROVED SHARE CAPITAL AND LOANS. 2. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE NAMES, ADDRESSES AND CONFIRM ATIONS FROM THE ALLEGED SHAREHOLDERS AND DEPOSITORS AND THUS HAD FU LLY DISCHARGED THE ITA NO.479/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2005-06 2 ONUS CAST UPON HIM U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGL Y NO SUCH ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND HE COUL D NOT HAVE EARNED SUCH PROFITS TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION OF IMPUGNED SU M OF 2,37,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE, THE LD CIT(A) ALSO F AILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DESPITE REQUEST FROM THE APPELLANT FULL OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO PRODUCE ALL THE ALLEGED PARTIES AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF 20,300/- MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON ADHOC BASIS OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AS UNDER :- A) OUT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPNS 2000/- B) OUT OF CONVEYANCE EXPNS 3600/- C) OUT OF TRAVELLING DIRECTORS 1800/- D) OUT OF TRAVELING STAFF 4500/- E) OUT OF ENTERTAINMENT EXPNS 6500/- F) OUT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPNS 1900/- ----------- 20300/- ----------- 6. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BE SET ASIDE AND THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF 2,37,000/- AND 20,300/- BE DEL ETED. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES YOUR HONOURS KIND PER MISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL, AS THE NEED BE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.479/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2005-06 3 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS GROUND NO.4 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEAD ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DESPITE REQUEST FROM THE APPELLANT FULL OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO PRODUCE ALL THE ALLEGED PARTIES AND THE REFORE THE ADDITION WAS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE REQUESTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS READY TO PRODUCE ALL THE PARTIES IN DISPUTE MENTIONED IN THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND REQUESTED FOR SOME MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THEM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH ME, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRO DUCE THE PARTIES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE I.E. ADDITION OF ` 2,37,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND THE ADDITION OF ` 20,300/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ADHOC BAS IS OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAM E AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.479/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2005-06 4 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.01.2012). SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 23 RD JANUARY, 2012 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT(APPEALS) CO NCERNED/D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY