The Assistant Commissioenr of Income-tax, Srinagar V. M/s. Ansari Motors, Srinagar

ITA 663/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8887 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:1993-94 & 1995-96 PAN: INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. ANSARI MOTORS, WARD 3(4), SRINAGAR. SONAWAR, SRINAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SMT. RATINDER KAUR, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 19/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/02/2016 ORDER THESE ARE THE DEPARTMENTS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1993-94 & 1995-96 AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CI T(A), JAMMU EACH, DATED 30.80.2013. 2. FIRST, WE WILL DEAL WITH ITA NO.663(ASR)/2013. T HE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.9,10 ,942/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED COMMISSION AND INTEREST INCOM E. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.38,4 42/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEADS CONVEYANCE RS.5000/- DONATIONS RS.11,442/-, MISC. EXPENSES RS.2,000/- REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES RS.20,000/- ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.10,0 00/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.69,5 70/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE TO RS.34,785/-. 3. SO FAR AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1, WHILE PASSING ASS ESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/03/2005 UNDER SECTION 143(3)/264 OF THE AC T, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS A COMMISSION DEALER OF M ARUTI UDYOG LIMITED AND ALSO DEALS IN SALE OF SPARE PARTS, LUBRICANTS,, ETC., THAT IT HAS INCOME FROM SERVICE/LABOUR CHARGES; THAT THE BUSINESS IS C ONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS HEAD OFFICER AT SRINAGAR AND FROM A BRANCH AT JAMMU; THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLA RING INCOME OF RS.9,370/-, AS LATE ON 17.09.2002 BUT BEFORE PASSIN G OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2000. MAKING THE SAID ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ITS BASE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF DEALERS COMMISSION AND INTEREST, THE AO HAD ADDED BACK RS.9,10,942/-, AS SUPPRESSED INCOME, OBSERVING THAT DURING THE YEA R, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED DEALERS COMMISSION AND INTEREST AMOUNTIN G TO RS.16,18,226/-; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ASKED TO GIVE SEPARATE D ETAILS OF DEALERS COMMISSION AND INTEREST BUT THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN F URNISHED; THAT THE BASIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED U/S 133(6) OF THE AC T, IT HAD BEEN GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.12,02,703/- AND INTEREST INCLUDING INTEREST ON VEHICLES AMOUNTI NG TO RS.13,26,505/-; THUS TOTAL COMMISSION AND INTEREST AMOUNT AMOUNTED TO RS.25,29,208/-, ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 3 AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED COMMISS ION AND INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.16,18,266/-; THAT THUS, THE ASSESSE E HAD SUPPRESSED COMMISSION/INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.9,10,942/-. WHI CH HAD BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO O BSERVED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN E XPLANATION DATED 18.03.2005. CLAIMING TOTAL COMMISSION AND INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED STOOD AT RS.16, 28,266.17 ONLY. THE AO OBSERVED THAT, HOWEVER, NO SUPPORTING CONFIRMATI ON FROM MUL HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF NON-PRODUCTION OF ANY FRESH EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO RESTO RED THE ADDITION IN FULL AMOUNTING TO RS.9,10,942/-. 4. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION. 5. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION CORRECTLY MADE, SINCE IT REMAINS UNREB UTTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY FRESH EVIDENCE, AS N OTED BY THE AO. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE DELETING T HE ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: GROUND NO APPEAL NO.2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF SUPPR ESSION OF COMMISSION AND INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.9,10,942/-. THE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE A PPELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS DISCLOSED COMMISSION AND INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.16,18,226/- IN THE PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH T HE THE ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 4 SEPARATE DETAILS OF DEALERS COMMISSION AND INTEREST BUT THE SAME WERE NOT FURNISHED. THE AO FURTHER U/S 133(6) OF TH E ACT , REQUESTED TO M/S. MARUTI UDYOG LTD. (MUL) TO PROVIDE THE INF ORMATION OF COMMISSION AND INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE TO THE APPELL ANT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MUL WHICH WERE CROSS CHECKED WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIO N AND INTEREST SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT BY T HE AO. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MUL FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED RS.25,29,208/- (COMMISSIONER RS.120270 3 + INTEREST RS.13,26,505/-) WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED COMMISSION AND INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.16,18,266/- IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO RECONCI LE THE DIFFERENCE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AP PELLANT FILED AN EXPLANATION AND CLAIMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS REC EIVED ONLY RS.16,18,266/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND INTERES T AND NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF IT S CONTENTION, WITH THE RESULT THE AO ADDED RS.9,10,942/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT IN THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS HAS ARGUED THAT THE INTEREST IS RECEIVED FROM MUL A ND A PART OF THE SAME IS FORWARDED TO THE CUSTOMERS. THE INTEREST FO RWARDED TO THE CUSTOMERS IS BOOKED IN THE SAME ACCOUNT AND ONLY NE T INTEREST IS BOOKED AS INCOME IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE A PPELLANT AND FINDING OF THE AO ON THE ISSUE. I HAVE VERIFIED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND NO SUCH CONFIRMATION FROM MUL U/S 133(6 ) OF THE ACT IS FOUND IN RECORD. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAIN ED THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES OF MUL AND THE FIGURES REFLECTE D IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS THE INTEREST FORWARDED TO CUSTOMERS AS THE FIGURES SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS NET OF INTERE ST FORWARDED TO CUSTOMERS. IN MY OPINION, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, ALL OWED A RELIEF OF RS.9,10,942/- IS ALLOWED. 8. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIO N, THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ON BEING ASKED TO RECONCILE T HE DIFFERENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT HAD RE CEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,18,266/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND INTERES T; THAT, HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAD BEE N FURNISHED; THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED T HAT INTEREST IS RECEIVED FROM MUL, A PART OF THE SAME IS FORWARDED TO THE CU STOMERS, WHICH IS ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 5 BOOKED IN THE SAME ACCOUNT AND ONLY NET INTEREST IS BOOKED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.25,29,208/- (COMMISSION RS .12,02,703/- + INTEREST RS.13,26,505/-), WHEREAS IT HAD DECLARED I NTEREST AND COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.16,18,266/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; THAT THE AO HAD BASED THIS OBSERVATION ON ALLEGED INFORM ATION RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE MUL, WHICH INFORMATION, AS PER THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, HAD BEEN CROSSED CHECKED WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSI ON AND INTEREST SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. THE L D. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, NO S UCH CONFIRMATION FROM MUL HAD BEEN FOUND. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BEFO RE US AND DESPITE THE DEPARTMENT HAVING BEEN GRANTED VARIOUS OPPORTUN ITIES TO DO SO, NO SUCH INFORMATION FROM MUL WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE US. THUS, THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CONFIRMATION FORM MUL U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT REMAINS UNREBUTTED. 8. FURTHER, THERE IS ALSO NO REBUTTAL TO THE ASSESS EES STAND, AS CONSIDERED AND ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES OF MUL AND THOSE OF REFLECTED IN THE ASSESS EES PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS THE INTEREST FORWARDED BY THE ASSESSEE T O ITS CUSTOMERS, HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FROM MUL. THE FIGURES SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND NET OF INTEREST FORWARDED TO THE CUSTO MERS. 9. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELE TING THE ADDITION IS UPHELD AND GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 6 10. COMING TO GROUND NO.2, THE AO MADE ESTIMATED/AD -HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEADS OF CON VEYANCE RS.5000/-, DONATION RS.11,442/-, MISC. EXPENSES RS.2,000/-, RE PAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES RS.20,000/-. THE WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE COMPLETE VOUCHER S OF THE EXPENSES. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION, DULY TAKIN G INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE . 12. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SEEN THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED SUCCESSFULLY THAT THE AO, WHILE MAKING THE ESTIMATED/AD-HOC ADDI TION, DID NOT DELINEATE AS TO WHAT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN CALLED FOR BY HIM. IN FACT, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF UN-VOUCHE D EXPENSES, AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES WERE EXCESSIVE IN COMPARISON TO T HOSE OF THE EARLIER YEARS. AS SUCH, THE ESTIMATE/AD-HOC ADDITIONS WERE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HENCE, GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 13. IN SO FAR AS GROUND NO.3, THE AO MADE AD-HOC DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/- ON THE BASIS THAT THE ELEMENT OF PERSON AL EXPENSES INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL EXPENSES COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. THE L D. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS TELEPHONES QUA WHICH THE ADD ITION HAS BEEN MADE, WERE INSTALLED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE. THAT BEING SO, ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 7 AGAIN THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE FAULTED FOR DELETIN G THE DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 IS REJECTED. 44. CONCERNING GROUND NO.4, THE AO MADE ESTIMATED/A D-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.69,570/- ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE R EPAIRS & MAINTENANCE AND DEPRECIATION ON RUNNING CAR, RESPECTIVELY, AGAI N ON THE BASIS THAT PERSONAL USE OF CAR FOR NON BUSINESS/PERSONAL PURP OSES COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. THE DISALLOWANCE CAME TO ONE FIFTH. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THIS DISALLOWANCE TO BE EXCESSIVE AND DIRECTED IT TO RES TRICT TO 1/10 TH . 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THAT THE VEHICLES IN QUESTION WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. T HIS REMAINS UNDISPUTED. OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.69, 570/-, THE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTED TO RS.34,785/-. I DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4, IS ALSO REJECTED. 16. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.664(ASR)/ 2014 FOR THE AY 1995-96, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.97,4 72/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT FROM SALES OF SPARES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.50,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.2,61 0,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION FROM SALE OF VEHICLE OF MUL, GURGAON. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.6,90 ,400/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TAX LIABILITY. ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 8 15. REGARDING GROUND NO.1, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.97,472/- REPRESENTING PROFIT ON SALE OF SPARES TAKEN AT 2% O F THE COMMISSION EARNED WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.52,20,000/-. ON APPEAL , THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 16. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ERRONEOUSLY DELETED THE ADDITION CORRECTLY MADE BY THE AO. 17. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED STR ONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 18. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DECLAR ED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.2,04,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SPARES AS AGAIN ST THE PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE AO AT RS.97,472/-. ON VERIFYING TH E ASSESSEES FINANCIALS, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THIS TO BE CORREC T. IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THIS , THAT THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. NOTHING CONTR ARY TO THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THIS BENCH. THEREFORE, FINDING NO MERIT THEREIN, ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. S 19. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, THE ADDITION OF RS.50, 000/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM SERVICES ON ESTIMATE BASIS . THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME. 20. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WE NT WRONG IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM SERVICES. ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 9 21. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 22. THE LD. CIT(A), ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEE S FINANCIALS, FOUND THAT IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AND OTHER RECEIPTS STOOD AL READY REFLECTED AT RS.17,61,107/-. ON THIS BASIS, THE ADDITION WAS DE LETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THIS ADDITION WAS FOUND TO CONTAIN NO ERRO R AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE P OSITION, AS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUN D NO.2 IS REJECTED. 23. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,61,000/-, I.E., 5% OF RS.52,20,000/- REPRESENT ING COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM MUL, AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ALREADY REFLECTED A COMMISSION OF RS.59,54,098/- FROM DEALERS. THE ADDI TION WAS THUS DELETED. HERE TOO, THE DEPARTMENT HAS REMAINED UNSU CCESSFUL IN CONTROVERTING THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE L D. CIT(A). THEREFORE, GROUND NO.3 IS REJECTED. 24. CONCERNING GROUND NO.4, THE AO ALSO MADE AN AD DITION OF RS.6,90,400/- U/S 43B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNPA ID SALES TAX LIABILITY NOT COVERED UNDER THE AMNESTY SCHEME. THE AO OBSERV ED THAT DURING THE INVESTIGATION, INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED FROM THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY, THE SALES TAX, CIRCLE-F, SRINAGAR, REGARDING UNPAID SALES TAX LIABILITY NOT ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 10 COVERED UNDER THE AMNESTY SCHEME. THE SALES TAX AUT HORITY INFORMED, VIDE LETTER DATED 27.10.2004 THAT THE DEMAND OF RS. 29,06,584/- IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 WAS CREATED AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 7(11) OF THE GST ACT, VIDE ORDER DATE D 31.03.2004. AS PER THE DEMAND NOTICE, THE DEMAND INCLUDED SALES TAX IN CLUDING SURCHARGE OF RS.6,90,400/- AND INTEREST OF RS.22,16,184/-, LEADI NG TO TOTAL DEMAND OF RS.29,06,584/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THIS LIABILIT Y HAD NOT BEEN PAID BY ASSESSEE. 25. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY AL SO INFORMED THAT THE DEMAND OF RS.29,06,584/- WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE AMNESTY SCHEME. THE AO OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT FURNISHED ITS ACCOUNTS, THE LIABILITY WAS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. 26. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 27. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,90,400/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACC OUNT OF UNPAID SALES TAX LIABILITY. 28. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 29. AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ON VERIFICATION OF T HE ASSESSEES FINANCIALS, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CREDITED RS.33,32,837.51 ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TAX LIABILITY U /S 43B OF THE ACT. BEFORE THIS BENCH, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT TO REPEL THIS CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). A CCORDINGLY, THE DELETION IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO.4 IS REJECTED. ITA NOS. 663 & 664(ASR)/2013 ASSTT. YEARS : 1993-94 & 1995-96 11 30. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTME NT ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/02/201 6. SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED: 01/02/2016 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. ANSARI MOTORS, SONAWAR, SRINAG AR, 2. THE ITO, WARD 3(4), SRINAGAR. 3. THE CIT(A), SRINAGAR 4. THE CIT, SRINAGAR 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.