H.S. Oberoi, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 608/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8246 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SOMBHADRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K GUPTA CA SH SUMIT GOEL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH:SMC-1(H) NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 608/DEL /2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011- 12) H.S. OBEROI, RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, CAS, L-7A(LGF), SOUTH EXT. PART 2, NEW DELHI. AADPO8796L VS ITO WARD 32(4) NEW DELHI. APPELLANT BY SH. P.K. GUPTA, CA SH. SUMIT GOEL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. V.R. SOMBHADRA, SR. DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-11 VIDE ORDER D ATED 11. 0 FT. 2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ADDITION OF RS. 53,092/- FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S ROLEX HOSIERY (P) LTD. VIS--VIS AS PER FORM 26AS FOR THE JOB WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IS ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ON MERITS. DATE OF HEARING 05.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.04.2016 2 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 14,04,030/- ON 29. 09. 2011. THE ASSESSEE WA S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF KNITTED FABRICS AN D HAS BEEN DOING JOB WORK FOR M/S ROLEX HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITE D. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143 (1) OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143 (2). 2.1. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THE LD. AO OBSERVED THAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY ROLEX ON THE JOB WORK AND THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE JOB WORK AMOUNT AS PE R ASSESSEES BOOKS VIZ-A-VIZ JOB WORK AS PER FORM 26 YEARS. ACCO RDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE RECONCILIATION BETWEEN I NCOME DECLARED AND THE INCOME AS PER FORM 26AS AS UNDER:- AS PER FORM 26 A-S RS. 3, 5 0, 143/- AS PER ASSESSEES BOOKS RS. 2 , 97, 051/- DIFFERENCE RS. 53, 092/- THE LD. AND AO ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.53,092/- TO THE INCOME THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. AEO THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). BEFORE THE LD. TH AT CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE WIT H RESPECT TO THE CURRENT YEAR JOB WORK INCOME FROM M/S ROLEX. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SOME BILLS TOTALING TO RS.53,091/- W HICH WERE RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WERE NOT ALLO WED BY ROLEX 3 IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WERE ULTIMATELY C REDITED BY M/S ROLEX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 BEING THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT M/S ROLEX HAD NOT ACCEPTED THESE BILLS DUE TO CERTAIN OBJECTIONS AND DEFECTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 53,091/- WAS OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 3.1. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT IT HAD OFFERED THE DISPUTED AMOUNT FOR THE TAX AS INCOME I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HOWEVER M/S ROLEX MADE THE PAYMENT OF THE SAID AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE THIS AMOUNT OF RS.53,091/- WOULD AMOUNT TO PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE TO SU BSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FILED COPIES OF VOUCHER PASSED BY ROLEX IN TH EIR BOOKS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ROLEX IN ASSESSEES BOOK FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, COPY O F LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ROLEX FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ROLEX IN THE BOO KS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND. 3.2. THE LD. CIT (A) HOWEVER DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION TO BE NOT G ENUINE AND NOT FORTHCOMING FROM ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT COUL D BE VERIFIABLE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 4.1. THE LD.AR REITERATED ALL THE SUBMISSIONS AND A RGUMENTS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER NET CIT (A). THE LD.AR ALSO SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). 4.2. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD.DR, SUPPORTED THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE PRODUCED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW AND THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE US BY THE LD.AR. 5.1. FROM THE JOURNAL VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS M/S ROLEX, IT APPEARS THAT THOUGH THE THOUGH THE PAYMEN T RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE PAYMENT HAVE BEEN RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S ROLEX IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. ON THE USER OF US THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IT AP PEARS THAT THERE HAS BEEN MANY JOB WORKS OF KNITTING THAT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF M/S ROLEX EXCEPT F OR A FEW THE REMAINING BILLS PRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S RO LEX HAS BEEN HONOURED AND CREDITED BY M/S ROLEX TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. A FEW BILLS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE LEDGER ACC OUNT PLACED AT PAGES 2 TO 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK TOTALING TO RS.53,09 2/- HAS NOT BEEN PAID DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. FURTH ER THE JOURNAL VOUCHERS PLACED AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.53,092/-HAS BEING CREDITED BY M/S ROLEX TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. 5.2. PATENTLY IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED THE SAID PAYMENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH ACTUA LLY PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM TH E FORM 26 A- S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 2 4. WE 5 ACCORDINGLY SEND BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUM ENTS FILED BEFORE US. THE LD.AO MAY VERIFY THE DETAILS AND MAY ALLOW THE CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STAN D STATISTICALLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL STANDS STATISTICALLY AL LOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.04. 2016 SD./- SD./- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: *KAVITA ARORA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI