M/s Bava Mines & Minerals , Mangalore V. Income TAx Officer Ward-1(2), Mangalore

ITA 563/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4569 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 563 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 1 3 M/S. BAVA MINES AND MINERALS, NO. 113/21, GROUND FLOOR, COMMERCIAL CENTRE, KULOOR, MANGALURU 575 013. PAN : A AIFB 5475 E VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), MANGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 12 . 06 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 . 06 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), INTER ALIA , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, FACTS, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT BY DETERMINING THE INCOME OF RS. 74,83,490/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 15,18,100/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 3,46,000/-BEING DIFFERENCE IN CREDITOR BALANCE IN CASE OF M/S MANGALORE LIME & MARINE INDUSTRIES WITHOUT ITA NO. 563/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS THE LOAN TRANSACTION AND ALL THE TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR ARE FULLY ACCOUNTED AND RECONCILED. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS MADE DURING THE YEAR ARE ALL THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THERE ARE NO FICTITIOUS ENTRIES MADE DURING THE YEAR. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN ADDING DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 346,000/-WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS TO HOW THE SAME IS AN INCOME IS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 22,27,479/-PAYABLE TO M/S COASTAL ENERGY PVT LTD, INVOKING THE SECTION 41(1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LIABILITY HAD NOT CEASED TO EXIST. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LIABILITY IN RELATION TO M/S COASTAL ENERGY PVT LTD CEASED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND HENCE THE SAME AUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 33,91,908/-PAYABLE TO M/S R.R. RE ROLLING MILL ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTY BY PROVIDING ADDRESS AND PAN OF THE CREDITOR. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS EXCESS INCOME OFFERED IN THE CASE OF M/S R. R. RE-ROLLING MILL AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF ADDITION DOES NOT ARISE. 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION IN EXCESS OF THE INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING WITH FISH AND FISHMEAL AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE APPELLANT COULD EARN THE AMOUNT OF INCOME AS ASSESSED FROM THE BUSINESS HE HAS CARRIED ON. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE, CHANGE AND DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 12.06.2018 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ITA NO. 563/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 ASSESSEE, DESPITE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. I THEREFORE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AND ACCORDINGLY REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND I FIND THAT CIT(A) HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE IT IN DETAIL AND SINCE I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN, I CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JUNE, 2018. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 22 ND JUNE, 2018. /NS/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE. (A. K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER