Sneh Tradelink Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer., Ward-8(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 552/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: 55220514 RSA 2005
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .!'#$, % & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A.NO. 552/AHD/2005 - ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )/ // / A.Y. 2001-02 2. ./ I.T.A.NO.1989/AHD/2006 - ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )/ // / A.Y. 2001-02 1. SNEH TRADELINK PVT.LTD. 401, AAROHI COMPLEX NR.VIJAY CROSS ROAD NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-380 009 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(2), AHMEDABAD ( ( ( ( / VS. 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(2), AHMEDABAD 2. SNEH TRADELINK PVT.LTD. AHMEDABAD * % ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAFCS 1407 H ( *- / // / APPELLANTS ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENTS ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHIREN SHAH, C.A. REVENUE BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR.D.R. (0 1 2% / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 01/02/2012 3') 1 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/02/2012 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN RECALLED BY ITAT B BE NCH AHMEDABAD IN MA NO.41/AHD/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.552/AHD/2005 & 1989/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2001-02) VID E ORDER DATED 29/07/2011 AND THE OPERATING PORTION THROUGH WHICH CONCLUSION WAS DRAWN AND JUDGEMENT WAS PRONOUNCED IS AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO.552/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1989/AHD/2006 (BY REVENUE) ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 2 - 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E RECORD WE FIND THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF ORIGINAL APPEAL IT A PPEARS THAT FULL FACTS WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH I N RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.11,02,028/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICE R AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE THE ORDER DATED 09-10- 2009 IS RECALLED IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.11,02 ,028/- ONLY. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL IN DUE COURS E FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE MA FILED BY REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY AL LOWED. 2. FROM THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS, IT IS APPARENT THAT O NLY IN RESPECT OF AN ADDITION OF RS.11,02,028/- WHICH HAD PERTAINED FOR ITA NO.552/AHD/2005 WAS RECALLED. IT IS, THEREFORE, APPARENT THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECTION OF RECALLING OF THE OTHER APPEAL BEARI NG ITA NO.1989/AHD/2006. DUE TO THIS REASON, WHATEVER IS THE VIEW EXPRESSED WHILE DECIDING THE SAID APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 9-1 0-2009 STANDS AS IT WAS WITHOUT ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. THE APPEAL FOR ITA NO.552/AHD/2005 WAS RECALLED ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF AN ADDITION OF RS.11,02,028/- WH ICH WAS CHALLENGED VIDE GROUND NO.IV; REPRODUCED BELOW:- IV. ADDITION OF OTHER INOCME RS. 11,02,028/- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING OTHER INCOME OF RS.11,02,028/- AS MADE B Y THE A.O. ON THE OBSERVATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE C ANNOT BE MADE. 4. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL, THE RESPECTED CO-O RDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS GROUND IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- ITA NO.552/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1989/AHD/2006 (BY REVENUE) ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 3 - 14. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS AS REGARD TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF OTHER IN COMES MADE BY THE AO AT RS.11,02,028/-. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE T HROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED TH E CASE RECORDS INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION VIDE PA RA-3.3 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER:- 3.3. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE COUNSEL OF THE AP PELLANT, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH ANY FRESH DETAILS/EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE T HE UNDERSIGNED, I DONT SEE ANY REASON TO HOLD A CONTRA VIEW TO WHAT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE A.O. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,02,0 28/- ALSO, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLA IM AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS/EVIDENCES EVEN DURING THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS, I HEREBY CONFIRM THE ABOVE THREE DISAL LOWANCES MADE BY THE A.O. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE AND FROM THE ARGUMENTS OF TH E LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS.11,02,028/- HAS ALREADY BEEN RECORDED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT AND HE DISPLAYED BEFORE US FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS THIS FACT. AS THE AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR, IF ADDITION IS SUSTAINE D, THIS WILL TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEL ETE THIS ADDITION AND THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. ON HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, ON FACE OF REC ORDS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO JUDICIAL REQUIREM ENT TO ALTER THE VERDICT OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE A O HAS COMPUTED THE TAXABLE INCOME VIDE ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 12/12/20 03, I.E. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER:- SUBJECT TO ABOVE DISCUSSION TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESS EE IS RECOMPUTED AS UNDER:- ITA NO.552/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1989/AHD/2006 (BY REVENUE) ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 4 - GROSS PROFIT AS DISCUSSED IN ORDER RS.53,25,112 ADD : OTHER INCOME RS.11,02,028 RS.64,27,140 LESS : ALLOWABLE EXPENSES 1) SALARY & WAGES RS. 1,537 2) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPS. CLAIMED RS.63,139 DISALLOWED RS.31,570 RS.31,569 3) INTEREST EXPS. CLAIMED RS.8,15,310 DISALLOWED RS.8,15,310 RS. NIL RS.33,106 TOTAL INCOME RS.63,94,034 ======== 5.1. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER THE PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31/3/2001, THE OTHER INCOME WAS INCLUDED AS FOLLOWS:- SALES H 532511272 OTHER INCOME I 1102028 CLOSING STOCK 18764471 552377771 THEREAFTER, THERE WAS A LOSS OF RS.2,04,017/-. AS PER THE STATEMENT OF INCOME PLACED ON PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER-BOOK THAT L OSS WAS DISCLOSED AS NET LOSS AS PER P&L A/C. WITH THE BACKGROUND OF THESE FIGURES, IF WE EXAMINE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE FIRST ROUND DATED 9/10/2009, THEN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE GP ADDITION OF RS.53,25,112/- WAS DELETED. DUE TO THIS REASON, EVEN IF IT COULD BE P RESUMED THAT THERE WAS A CONFUSION ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES THAT TOO WILL AGAIN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE LOSS TO BE COMPUTED CONSEQUENT UPON THE RELIEF OF THE ITAT ORDER. RA THER, IT WAS WRONG ON ITA NO.552/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.1989/AHD/2006 (BY REVENUE) ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 5 - THE PART OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO ARGUE THAT TH E INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES IS BESIDES THE COMPUTATION OF THE GROSS PROFIT AS ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. THAT GROSS PROFIT DO NOT SUR VIVE AFTER THE DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THUS THE R ESULTANT FIGURE SHALL BE A NEGATIVE I.E. A LOSS FIGURE. BECAUSE OF THIS REA SON ALONE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE TANTAMOUNT TO A FUTILE EXE RCISE. IN THE RESULT, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE ORIGINAL ORDE R IS HEREBY FOLLOWED; THUS THIS GROUND STOOD ALLOWED. 6. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. FOR THE RESULT, WE HEREBY REPRODUCE PARA-18 OF THE ORIGINAL AS UNDER:- IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( . .!'#$ ) ( ) % ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( M UKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/ 02 /2012 52..(, .(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 4 1 .6 7 6) 4 1 .6 7 6) 4 1 .6 7 6) 4 1 .6 7 6)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 8 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8() / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 6;! .( , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. !$ <0 / GUARD FILE. 4( 4( 4( 4( / BY ORDER, /6 . //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD