ACIT, Jaipur V. RAJ KUMAR MARU, Jaipur

ITA 626/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2093 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S KOTHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 626/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR CUKE VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR MARU, B-105, SETHI COLONY, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. A BXPM0067F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI D.S. KOTHARI (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF HEARING : 12/05/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/05/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER : SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 23.03.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-13. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 47 ,78,300/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED DEBTORS IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSE E. 2 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE A.O DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONSIDE RED ALL ASPECT OF ISSUES AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HEREAFTER MADE ADDITION ON THE POINT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE OR RESERVING THE RIGH T TO AMEND MODIFY, ALTER ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2 ITA NO. 626/JP/2016 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR MARU 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH & SEI ZURE OPERATION U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE A CT) WAS CARRIED OUT ON 08.06.2011 AT THE DIFFERENT PREMISES OF DR. ANISH M ARU GROUP. IT IS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED AND THEREFORE A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF IN COME ON 21.02.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,63,770/-. THE ASSESSEE REVISE D THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.10.2013 AT RS. 2,63,760/-. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREBY ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ON ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UN DISCLOSED DEBTORS OF RS. 47,78,300/- 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APP EAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND EXAMINED THE REPORT DELETED THE ADDITIONS. 5. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNA L. 6. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE AGAINST DELETING ADDITIO NS OF RS. 47,78,300/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED DEBTORS. 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO OBSERVED IN ASS ESSMENT ORDER THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LIST OF DEBTORS WAS NOT UPDATED FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WAS CONDUCTED DURING WHICH A LIST OF DEBTORS CONTAINING THE NAME OF PERSON, VEHICLE NUMBER AND THE AMOUNT WAS FOUND AND INVENTORISED AS PER ANNEXURE B1-1 PAGE 1- 13 (PB 18-30). THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEBTORS AS PER T HIS LIST WAS RS. 4,43,25,707/- 3 ITA NO. 626/JP/2016 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR MARU THE ASSESSEE ON INSISTENCE BY SURVEY TEAM TITLED IT AS THE LIST OF DEBTORS PARAS TRADING CO. ON 08.06.2011 IN HIS HANDWRITING. THE S URVEY PARTY ALSO TOOK THE PRINTOUT OF BALANCE SHEET OF THIS CONCERN AS ON 08. 06.2011. AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET, THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS WAS RS. 3,76,21 ,657/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE QUERY WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCE. IN REPLY THER ETO, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THIS LIST IS FUTURE VALUE OF DEBTO RS AND NOT THE CURRENT VALUE AND FOR THIS REASON THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE. HE SUBMITTE D DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT LIST OF DEBTORS FOUND ON 08.06.2011 WAS NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PARTIES WHERE AMOUNT WAS REFLECTED OUTSTANDING IN FACT, WAS RECOVERED PR IOR TO 08.06.2011 AND THE LOAN WHICH WAS NOT SANCTIONED AFTER 08.06.2011 WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THAT LIST. SO, THERE WAS A FACTUAL ERROR INTO THAT LIST. HE SUBMITTED UN DER THIS FACT, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. HE SUBMITTED T HAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 24.10.2013 SUBMITTED THAT OUTSTANDING DEBTORS AS ON 08.06.2011 AS MENTIONED IN THE LIST O F OUTSTANDING DEBTORS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS OF RS. 4,46,52,320/-. ON COMPA RING THESE TWO LISTS OF DEBTORS, IT CAN BE NOTED THAT CERTAIN NAMES WERE MATCHING IN BOTH THE LISTS BUT CERTAIN NAMES WERE APPEARING ONLY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THIS WAS FOR THE REASON THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEBTORS MENTIONED IN THE IMPOUNDED LIST H AD BEEN REALISED BUT THE SAME WAS NOT INCORPORATED IN THE IMPOUNDED LIST AND AT T HE SAME TIME THE AMOUNT SO REALISED WAS UTILIZED IN GIVING FRESH ADVANCES RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS WAS ALSO NOT INCORPORATED IN THE IMPOUNDED LIST. HENCE, NAME WI SE COMPARISON OF THE AMOUNT OF DEBTORS AS PER THE IMPOUNDED LIST WITH THE OUTSTAND ING DEBTORS AS PER BOOKS AS ON 08.06.2011 WAS INCORRECT. BROADLY THE AMOUNT AS PER IMPOUNDED LIST AT RS. 4,24,10,247/- WAS MUCH LOWER THAN THE OUTSTANDING D EBTORS AS PER BOOKS AT RS. 4,46,52,320/-. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND LD.CIT(A) GAVE A FINDING ON FACT THAT THE LIST FOUND DURING SURVEY WAS NOT COMPLETE BUT IMPOUNDED LIST OF DEBTORS WAS PREPARED ON A PARTICULAR DATE. THIS IS 4 ITA NO. 626/JP/2016 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR MARU EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT DEBTORS AS PER THE LIST WAS LESS THAN AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET THIS FACT IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE BY P LACING IN CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE UPHELD THE SAME. HENCE, THIS GROUND I S DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/05/2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) (BHAG CHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 23/05/2017. GANESH KUMAR VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X, JAIPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT SH. RAJ KUMAR MARU, JAIPUR 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 626/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR