M/s Tilak Raj Aggarwal & Bros., Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 664/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9561 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AY DATED IX LD DR ON OTHE

Judgement Text

ITA NO.664/ASR/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 2 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO TRADING ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 145(3) OF THE ACT. EXPLAINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH FINDING IS GIVEN. THEREFORE, NO TRADING ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. COUNSEL, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY ACCOUNTING STANDARD B EING NOT FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ABOUT CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT, WAS PLACED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS MENTIONED BELOW: I) CIT VS. PARADISE HOLIDAYS, 325 ITR 13 (DEL.) II) MADNANI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (P) LTD. VS. C IT (2008) 296 ITR 45 (GAU.) III) CIT VS. RAJNI KANT DAVE (2006) 281 ITR 06 (ALL .) IV) ASHOKA REFRACTORIES P. LTD. VS. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 457 (CAL.) V) JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT UDYOG LTD. VS. CIT (2005) 278 ITR 52 (CAL.) VI) CIT VS. VIKRAM PLASTICS (1999) 239 ITR 161 (GUJ.) VII) ITO VS. GIRISH M. MEHTA (2008) 296 ITR (AT) 125 (IT AT RAJKOT) VIII) MODERN DISTRIBUTORS VS. ITO IN ITA NO.341/ASR/2015 FOR AY 2010-11, DATED 12.04.2016. IX) 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED STRONG REL IANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.664/ASR/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 4 8. THE LD. DR HAS, HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO DID NOT RE CORD A SATISFACTION REGARDING CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOU NT IS NOT CORRECT AS THE AO AT PAGE 3 OF HIS ORDER HAD NOTED THAT TRADIN G RESULTS WERE NOT OPEN TO VERIFICATION AND ACCORDINGLY ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WERE REJECTED. THEREFORE, THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSE L THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE, DO ES NOT HOLD ANY FORCE. HOWEVER, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO GROUND NOS. 3 AND 6 , WHEREIN THE ASSESSE E IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE FACTS THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CONTAINED AT PAGES 1 TO 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND AT PAGE 8 OF THE PB IS THE STATEMENT OF RECONCI LIATION OF FIGURE OF RS.60,889/-, WHEREIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHAS ES AS PER TRADING ACCOUNT AND AS PER VAT RETURNED HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE LD. C IT(A) , WHO SHOULD PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TH E DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED