The ACIT, Circle-6, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Navdurga Specific Family Trust, Ahmedabad

ITA 48/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76882 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.48/AHD/2011 A.Y.2005-06 ASSISTANT CIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD. VS NAVDURGA SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST, 496-498, PHASE-II, GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI NIMESH YADAV, SR.D.R., ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI HEMANSHU SHAH, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 08/07/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/07/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 20.10.2010 AND THE MAIN GROUND ARGUED BEFORE US IS REPRODUCED BELOW: THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,48,890/- BEING JOB-W ORK RECEIPTS. 2. THIS IS AN APPEAL ARISING FROM AN ORDER OF AO, D ATED 15.12.2008 PASSED U/S.144 R.W.S. 147 OF IT ACT. ACCORDING TO W HICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECONCILED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TDS CERTI FICATE ISSUED AND THE JOB WORK CHARGES CREDITED. DUE TO THAT REASON, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.28,48,890/- WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 3. ON VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED RS.1,31,03, 418/- TOWARDS JOB WORK CHARGES RECEIVED WHEREAS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES IT IS WORKED OUTAT ITA NO.48/AHD/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD VS. NAVDURGA SPECIFIC FAM ILY TRUST. FOR A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 - RS.1,60,12,308/- SHOWING A DIFFERENCE OF RS.28,48,8 90/-. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED NOR FURNISHED ANY DETAILS IT IS PRESUM ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.28,48,890/- IN RESPECT OF JOB WORK CHARGES ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER: TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME RS. 73,98,43 0/- ADD: ADDITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. RS. 28,48,890/ - ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME RS.1,02,47,320/- 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE FOLL OWING MANNER: 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.12.2008, THE ADDITION WAS MADE TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED JOB-WORK RECEIPTS. THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WAS TO VERIFY THE RECONCILIATION OF JOB-WORK RECEIPTS (AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES AND AS PER P&L A/C) FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER, AO HAS NOT SAID A WORD AS TO WHETHER AND WHY THE RECONCILIATION FUR NISHED WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THUS, AO IMPLIEDLY ACCEPTED THE RECONCI LIATION. 4.2.1 HOWEVER, HE REPRODUCED SECTIONS 190(1) AND 19 8 AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AT THE SAME FIGURE. THE ORDER IS A NON-SPEAK ING ORDER. FURTHER, AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AR, AO COULD NOT TRAVEL BE YOND THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS. 4.2.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELET E THE ADDITION F RS.55,89,377/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF JOB-WORK RECEIPTS . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED SR.D.R., M R. NIMESH YADAV HAS SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE AO AND PLEADED THAT DUE TO ABSENCE OF PROPER COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO HAD NO OPTION BUT TO TAX THE DIFFERENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE BY FILING RECONCI LIATION; THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED. ITA NO.48/AHD/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD VS. NAVDURGA SPECIFIC FAM ILY TRUST. FOR A.Y. 2005-06 - 3 - 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED AR, MR. H EMANSHU SHAH APPEARED AND INFORMED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE MUL TIPLE PROCEEDINGS HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE PAST. HE HAS INFORMED THAT ORIGINALLY AN ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY AO, VIDE AN ORDER DATED 15.1 2.2008. THE SAID ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO H AS VIDE AN ORDER DATED 02.04.2009 (APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-XI/715/08-09) H AS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLA IM FROM THE RECORD AND IF FOUND CORRECT DELETE THE ADDITION. THAT DIRECTIO N OF THE CIT(A) WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT BEFORE HONBLE ITAT AND THEREUPON HONBLE ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.2201/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 18.09.2009 HAS HELD THAT THE LEARNED CI T(A) HAS NO POWER TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER; THEREFORE, THAT ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT(A) WAS REVERSED, HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL THOUGHT IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE RECONCILIATION STATED TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISS UE, THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2010 AND THE ADDITION WAS REP EATED WITHOUT ANY DISTURBANCE. AGAIN, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEA L BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND AN ORDER WAS PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A)-XI AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO.356/10-11 ORDER DATED 18.03.2011 AND HELD THAT THE RECONCILIATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNCON TROVERTED AND NO ADDITION WAS WARRANTED. THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO DELE TE THE ADDITION. THAT ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 18.03.2011 WAS AGAIN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE. HONBLE ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD IN A COM BINED ORDER BEARING ITA NO.1556 AND 1557/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y. 2005 -06 ORDER DATED 23.12.2011 HAS HELD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD RIG HTLY CONSIDERED THE ITA NO.48/AHD/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD VS. NAVDURGA SPECIFIC FAM ILY TRUST. FOR A.Y. 2005-06 - 4 - RECONCILIATION AND FOUND THAT EXPLANATION CORRECT; THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. SO, THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER WAS AFFIRMED AND THE REVENUES APPEALS WERE DISMISSED. LEARNED AR HAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN THE TRIB UNAL HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THIS VERY ADDITION AND DELETED THE SAME; THEREFORE ONLY BECAUSE OF MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS REVENUE HAS AGAIN F ILED THIS APPEAL WHICH SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 6. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND AFTER CONSIDERING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT IN THE PAST THE HONBLE ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 23.12.2011 IN ITA NO.15 57/AHD/2011 HAS UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WH EREIN THE RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND CORRECT, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.28,48,890/- IS SQU ARELY COVERED BY THAT DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. RATHER, THE REV ENUE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE S O AS TO AVOID THE MULTIPLE APPEALS. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE; HENCE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11/07/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. ITA NO.48/AHD/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD VS. NAVDURGA SPECIFIC FAM ILY TRUST. FOR A.Y. 2005-06 - 5 - 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD