Sh. Surjeet Kumar Chawla, Bhiwani V. ITO, Bhiwani

ITA 5835/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8945 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K ARORA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5835/DEL/2016 A.Y.: 2010-11 SURJEET KUMAR CHAWLA, VS. ITO, WARD-1, PROP. M/S CHAWLA STEELS, BHIWANI BAWRI GATE, BHIWANI (PAN: ABVPC4924D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. S.K. ARORA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR. O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 03.8.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR PERTAINING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT ON THE FACTS, LAW AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR, HARYANA IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AL LEGED NON- PAGE 2 OF 5 VERIFICATION OF CREDITORS BALANCE RS. 3,05,520/- DES ERVERS TO BE DELETED. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THERE IS A DELAY OF 33 DAYS IN FIL ING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THIS BEHALF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING PRESENT APPEAL. AFTER PERUSING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF D ELAY, I FIND PLAUSIBLE REASONS FOR DELAY OF 33 DAYS IN FILING T HE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, HENCE, THE DELAY IN DISPUTE IS CONDONED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FI LED HIS E-RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 5,12,130/- ON 24.9.2010. THE ASSESS EE DERIVES INCOME FROM TRADING IN SARIA, ANGLE, GRADER AND CEMENT ETC. IN THE NAME OF M/S CHAWLA STEELS, BAWARI GATE, BHIWANI. W HILE EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/ COPY OF TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LOAN AMOUNT AT RS. 500000/- CREDITED TO HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT FROM SH. BHUPENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR AND ALSO SHOWN RS. 649770/- PAYABLE TO SH. BHUPINDER SINGH CONTRACT OR AS ON 31.3.2010 IN THE SCHEDULE-D OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OF THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF SH . BHUPENDER SINGH FOR THE FYRS 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-1 2 AS APPEARING IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHO UT CONFIRMATION FROM SH. BHUPENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR AS MENTIONED AT PAG E NO. 3-4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE OPENIN G BALANCE OF RS. 16,29,100/- OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY SH. BHUPENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR. HE ADMITTED TO ONLY RS. 7,84,850/- AS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2009. DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT, CLOSING CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2010 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 6,49,770/- WAS DENIED BY SH. BHUPEN DER SINGH PAGE 3 OF 5 CONTRACTOR. IT WAS THEREFORE HELD BY THE AO THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,05,520/- IN CASH, T O SH. BHUPENDER SINGH AS PER HIS STATEMENT. THE AO HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD SHOWN FICTITIOUS LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3, 05,520/- IN THE NAME OF SH. BHUPEINDER SINGH CONTRACTOR IN HIS BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS, AS ON 31.3.2010. SINCE, EXCESS OF ASSETS OVER LIABILITIES CONSTITUTE INCOME, THEREFORE, RS. 3,05,520/- WAS ADDED TOWARDS THE TAXA BLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FICTITIOUS LIABILITY SHO WN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 9,45,540/- VIDE ORDER DATED 22.3.2013 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF TH E ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.8.2016 HAS PARTL Y ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ADDIT ION IN DISPUTE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED NON-VERIFICATION OF C REDITORS BALANCE RS. 3,05,520/-. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE R ELIANCE PLACED ON STATEMENT OF THE CONTRACTOR WHICH WAS LACK OF SUBSTAN CE AND MERELY GIVEN ON GUESS WORK AND IGNORING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPLANATION THEREOF IS ILLEGAL A ND ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WRONGLY HELD THAT THE ONUS FOR PROVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREATED FICTITIOUS LIABILITY IN HIS BOOKS HAS BE EN DISCHARGED BY THE AO AND ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSE HAS CON TESTED ADDITION OF PAGE 4 OF 5 RS. 3,05,520/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN BALANCE S WITH SH. BHUPENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR. IT HAS BEEN STATED BY TH E ASSESSEE THAT NO SUCH PAYMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ENTRIES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. ACTION WAS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF BHUPENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAD CALLED FOR CONFIRMATION FROM SH. BHUPENDER SINGH-CONTRACTOR. AFTER THAT, THE AO SUMMONED SH. BHUP ENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR. HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED IN THE PRESENC E OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. SH. BHUPENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR ADMITT ED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSEE. SH. BHUPENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR WAS OFFERED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING CROSS EXAMINATION ALSO SH. BHUPENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH FROM THE ASS ESSEE. THIS FACT COULD NOT BE REFUTED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE DURING CROSS EXAMINATION. SH. BHUPENDER SINGH CONTRACTOR GAVE COPIE S OF HIS ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS. DETAILED ACC OUNTS AND DATES ON WHICH SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED WAS MENTIONED. THE ONUS FOR PROVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREATED FICTITIOUS LIA BILITY IN HIS BOOKS HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE COURSE O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE OTHE RWISE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,05,520/- AS FICTITIOUS LIABILITY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, WHICH DOES NO T NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. PAGE 5 OF 5 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15-01-2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:15/01/2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES