Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Bareilly V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

ITA 633/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 63323714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• 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.633 & 634/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICE, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, BAREILLY, U.P. VS SAHAKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD. FARIDPUR, BAREILLY, U.P. 243 001 PAN AAEAS 2700 G (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI KAPIL AGARWAL, CA APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 29 / 10 /2015 DATE OF HEARING ./11/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATE D ORDER. HOWEVER, WE PREFER TO ADJUDICATE THEM ONE AFTER THE OTHER. ITA NO.633/LKW/2015 2. THROUGH THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A), MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS, ONE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR RS. 40,19,804/- AND OTHER IS ON ACCOU NT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.28,55,557/-. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER AGAINST THE 2 ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) HAS AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT. BUT THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) A ND THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAS DISPOSED OF THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL WITHIN FEW LINES WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILED EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM. L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO ENORMOUS EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THESE EVIDEN CE WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT IT WAS NOT LOOKED INTO BY HIM. THEREFOR E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCE FILED BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFOR E THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AS T HEY HAVE RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES. 4. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION WITH THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ITS ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITORS AND ALSO THE EXPEN SES CLAIMED BY HIM. BUT THEY WERE NOT LOOKED INTO BY THE CIT(A). UNDISPUTEDLY, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON AC COUNT OF HIS NON APPEARANCE. BUT, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PLACED THE EVID ENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO IT, WHILE ADJUDICATI NG THE ISSUE. BUT THE CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE GROUNDS IN FEW LINES IN HIS ORDER. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL NEED READJUDICATION. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) A ND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY 3 OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF EVID ENCE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXTENT ALL COOPERATION TO THE CIT(A) BY PLACING RELEVANT EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM AND ALSO MAKE NECESSAR Y COMPLIANCE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. THE CIT (A) IF NEED BE MAY CALL THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. ITA NO.634/LKW/2015 5. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A), THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DOES NOT STAND. WE ACCORDI NGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A FRESH PENALTY ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) IN QUANTUM APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR Y ADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/11/2015 AKS 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. REGISTRA R