M/s Galaxy Press Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 58/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4626 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.58/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, LUCKNOW. VS M/S GALAXY PRESS PVT. LTD., 503-KHA/152, AMAR BHAWAN, FAIZABAD ROAD, KSSILA, LUCKNOW. PAN:AACCG2035Q (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 15/03/2016 DATE OF HEARING 18 /03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 18/11/2014 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,93,72,496 U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE CREDITORS AGAINST THE MANDATE OF T HE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT LAID DOWN IN CASE OF C IT VS. PANCHAM DAS JAIN 205 CTR 444 (ALLD.) AND FURTHER REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT LUCKNOW, BENCH IN TH E CASE OF M/S PATHAK ENTERPRISES ITA NO 230/LKW/2013. 2. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,93,72,496/- IN RELAT ION TO TRADE CREDITORS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ONLY TRANSACTIONS OF RS.41,08,193/- UNDER THE HEAD CREDITORS PERTAIN TO THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE OTHER AMOUNT REPRESENTS OPENING BALANCE WHICH CANNO T 2 BE ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION BE TREATED AS THE INC OME OF THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EARN AN INCOME OF RS.3,12,03,100/- FROM THE BUSINESS TURNOVER OF RS.5,73,35,211.53/-. 4. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCES OUT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES OF THE DIRECTORS OF RS.38,426/-. 5. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCES OUT OF FOREIGN TRAVELING EXPENSES OF THE DIRECTORS OF RS.50,000/-. 6. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCES OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS.17,390/-. 7. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PROVIDE THE PROPE R OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLEAD ITS CASE. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSE E MADE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, PROPER COMPLIANCE COU LD NOT BE MADE BECAUSE THERE WAS TECHNICAL GLITCH IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM O F THE ASSESSEE WHERE FINANCIAL DATA WAS BEING MAINTAINED AND IN SPITE OF BEST EFFORTS OF THE ASSESSEE, DATA COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED FROM THE COMP UTER SYSTEM DURING THAT PERIOD. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE E NTIRE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR F RESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FE EL THAT CONSIDERING THIS FACT THAT BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL GLITCH IN THE C OMPUTER SYSTEM OF THE 3 ASSESSEE, THE FINANCIAL DATA COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE PRESENT ISSUE SHOULD BE RE STORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOW SUBMIT ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHOULD F RAME THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DENOVO AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, WE DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED:18/03/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR