Nandita Juneja, Faridabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4897/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 489720114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4897/ DEL/ 2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4897/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2002 - 03 NANDITA JUNEJA, FLAT NO. 1108, KENWOOD TOWER - A, CHARMSWOOD VILLAGE, FARIDABAD 121009 HARYANA (PAN: PAAOPJ4044K ) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23 ( 1 ), CR BUILDING NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. R.S. SINGHVI, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. K.K. JAISWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20 - 4 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 2 1 - 4 - 2015 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - XX V , NEW DELHI DATED 25 . 3 .201 0 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 23,45,411/ - ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF UNVERIFIED PURCHASES AND SERVICES OB TAINED FROM M/S MAHESH EXPORT (RS. ITA NO. 4897/ DEL/ 2010 2 19,62,272/ - , M/S LOOMS (RS. 2,39,292/ - ) AND M/S RAHUL CREATION (RS. 1,43,886/ - ). 2. THAT CLAIM OF EXPENSES IS FULLY SUPPORTED FROM BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND PAYMENTS WERE ALSO MADE THROUGH BANK. 3. THAT ALL THE EXPENSES ARE I N RESPECT OF EXECUTION OF EXPORT ORDERS AND THE CLAIM OF PURCHASES AND SERVICES HAVE DIRECT NEXUS WITH EXPORT ORDERS AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ANY ADVERSE INFERENCES. 4. THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT ALLOWED PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AND WHOLE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND MISCONCEIVED. 5. THAT ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITY ARE NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE AND THE SAME ARE BAD IN LAW. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFOR E, NEED NOT TO NARRATE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY , LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WRONGLY UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE S BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE ITA NO. 4897/ DEL/ 2010 3 LD. CIT(A), BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPR ECIATED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. HE REQUESTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW WITH THE DIRECTION TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUB STANTIATING ITS CLAIM. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2002. THE AO SELECTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE SAME AFTER ISSUING THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM EXPORT BUSINESS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC AT RS. 11,73,798/ - AND INTEREST FROM BANK AND NSC. AS PER R ECORD, THE AO IS SUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 136(6) OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: - I) M/S PARAS SONS, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI. II) M/S MAHESH EXPORTS, SALEM. III) M/S RS HAND EMBROIDERY. IV) M/S LOOM, LAL KUAN, NEW DELHI V) M/S TROPICAL TRANSPORT, BHIKA JI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI ITA NO. 4897/ DEL/ 2010 4 VI) M/S RAHUL CREATIONS. 5.1 OUT OF THE AFORESAID PARTIES, IN THE CASE OF M/S MAHESH EXPORTS, M/S RS HAND EMBROIDERY, M/S RAHUL CREATIONS AND M/S LOOM, COMPLIANCE WAS NOT MADE. THESE FACTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL AND WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FOR PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS MADE TO THEM, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO. EVEN AFTER, REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL BY THE AO, ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM. BUT IN THE LAST , THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD I.E. COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, INVOICE ETC. WHICH ARE NOT VERIFIABLE AND THE AO MADE THE AD DITION U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE CASE OF M/S MAHESH EXPORTS RS. 1962272/ - ; M/S LOOMS RS. 239293/ - AND M/S RAHUL CREATIONS RS. 143886/ - AND M/S RS HAND EMBROIDERY RS. 136840/ - TOTALLING TO RS. 24,82,251/ - AND COMPLETED THE ASS ESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 29.3.2005. LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. BUT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME T O THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING THE DISPUTE D PARTIES ON WHOM ACCOUNT S THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE ITA NO. 4897/ DEL/ 2010 5 THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW, AFTER PROVIDING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD CO - OPERATE AND MADE THE COMPLIANCE OF ALL THE NOTICES , ORDER OR DIRECTIONS OF T HE AO, IF ANY, FOR THE EARLY COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE IS AN OLD ONE I.E. 2002 - 03. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN C OURT ON 2 1 / 4 /20 15. S D / - S D / - [ S.V. MEHROTRA ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 2 1 / 4 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 4897/ DEL/ 2010 6