ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Venus Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5088/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65944 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SUSHMA SINGH
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACC OUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5088/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), NEW DELHI. VS. M/S VENUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, THAPAR HOUSE, 124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI 110 011. PAN : AAACV3258L. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MRS.SUSHMA SINGH, CIT-DR. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM : THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1 AUGUST, 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NEW DEL HI ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.4,74,79,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 BY THE ITA-5088/DEL/2012 2 ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER ERRED IN ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UN DER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, WE HAVE HEARD MRS.SUSHMA SIN GH, LEARNED CIT-DR. NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 1 OCTOBER, 2012. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER TO ATTEND THE HEARING. THE REFORE, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX-PARTE, QUA ASSESSEE AND TEND TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CRUX OF A RGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS WRONGLY DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS VI OLATION OF RULES. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRIES AND MER ELY VIDE LETTER DATED 12.09.2011 MADE SUBMISSIONS BY CLAIMING THAT THESE ADVANCES WERE MADE TOWARDS ADVANCE FOR LAND IN EARLIER YEAR. THE ASSE SSEE ALSO DID NOT FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION OR OTHER DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THAT THE SAID SUM, AS SHOWN, WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE CONCERNED PERSON. THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER WAS SUPPORTED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY THE LEARNED CI T-DR, PERUSED THE RECORD AVAILABLE ON THE FILE AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE OBSERV ATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. T HE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE A SSESSEE ITA-5088/DEL/2012 3 SHOWED RECOVERY OF OLD ADVANCES AMOUNTING TO RS.4,74,79,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THESE CREDITS. VIDE ITS SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THESE CREDITS ARE THE ADVANCE S GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND LATER ON RECEIVED BACK. EVEN IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, THERE IS A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BANK DE POSIT SLIPS AND COPIES OF THE CHEQUE DEPOSITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING UNSATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ADDITION U/ S 68 OF THE ACT. 3.1 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE AND PERUSED THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2008 TO 31.3 .2009 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF SALE/PURCHASE OF LAND AND DURING THE YEAR MADE ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND TO ONE SHRI R.K.SAXENA WHO PURCHASED THE LAND FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTION DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 WERE FURNISH ED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME WERE EXAMINED WHICH IS SUMMARIZED AS UNDE R:- ITA-5088/DEL/2012 4 THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXAMINED THE EXTENT AND DETAIL OF LAND PU RCHASED AND THE BALANCE RECEIVABLE AS ON 31 MARCH, 2008 AS IS EVIDENT FROM PAGES 7 & 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND THROUGH SHRI SAXE NA IN PIECES AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.3.2008 WAS RS.4,74,79,000/- WHICH WAS RETURNED BY SHRI SAXENA, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 10 OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). FOR READY R EFERENCE, SUCH DETAILS ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- ITA-5088/DEL/2012 5 THE WHOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE, WHILE MAKING THE ADDITI ON, IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND THUS, THE ADDITION WA S MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE OBJECTION/OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND IF THE AFORESAID DETAILS ARE EXAMINED, WE FIND THAT THE DAT E OF DEPOSIT, NAME OF THE BANK ALONG WITH CHEQUE NUMBER AND AMOUNT HAS BEEN DULY EXAMINED. SINCE THE FACTUM OF AFORESAID DETAILS ARE NOT IN DO UBT THAT TOO WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND NO JUST IFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. EVE N OTHERWISE, THE TRANSACTIONS HAPPENED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND AS I S EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 30.12.2010, THE PROV ISION OF SECTION 68 IS NOT AT ALL ATTRACTED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPE AL AS THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE NEITHER LOANS NOR ADVANCES. THE WHOLE A MOUNT HAS ITA-5088/DEL/2012 6 BEEN RETURNED THROUGH CHEQUE, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AVAILABL E IN THE AFORESAID TABLE. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS QUITE JUSTI FIED IN REACHING TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION, CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.C.MEENA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.12.2012 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : M/S VENUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, THAPAR HOUSE, 124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI 110 011. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR