Euro Asie Interiors Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 666/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4431 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NETHRAPAL IRS

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 666/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-2008. M/S. EURO ASIE INTERIORS PVT. LTD, NO.19 (OLD NO.230) KILPAUK GARDEN ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI 600 010. [PAN AABCE 2696J] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI. ( !' / APPELLANT) ( #$!' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADV /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. M.S. NETHRAPAL, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 29-05-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-05-2017 % / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED A GAINST AN ORDER DATED 28.12.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) - 9, CHENNAI. 2. GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON AN ADDITION OF @51,04,580/-, DISBELIEVING ITS CLAIM OF ADVANCE RE CEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS. 3. ASSESSEE AN IMPORTER AND SELLER OF FURNITURE AND ACCESSORIES HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ITA NO.666/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF @18,95,169/-. IN THE SC HEDULE FILED ALONGWTIH BALANCE SHEET, APPENDED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME, A SUM OF @51,04,580/- WAS SHOWN AS ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS . IT SEEMS ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS FOR THIS AMOUN T BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN AD DITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ADVA NCES WERE RECEIVED, DURING THE COURSE OF ITS APPEAL PROCEEDI NGS BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LATTER AUTHOR ITY, REFUSED TO CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE CONSIDERING IT AS FRESH, F OR WANT OF APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. HE THU S CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. NOW BEFORE ME, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS COULD NOT BE TREATE D AS INCOME. ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAD TAKEN A VERY TECHNICAL VIEW AND IGNORING THE FULL D ETAILS OF ADVANCES SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT MIGHT BE TRUE T HAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT ITA NO.666/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: COMPLIED WITH THE TECHNICALITIES OF RULE 46A WHILE GIVING DETAILS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM IT HAD RECEIVED ADVANCES BEFORE T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER, IN MY OPINION THERE IS MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, T HAT ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS, IF PROVED TO BE CORRECT, C OULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD PRO VE THAT THE SUBJECT ADDITION WAS IN FACT ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CU STOMERS, WILL IN MY OPINION RESULT IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. I THEREF ORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR CONSIDERATION AFRES H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:31ST MAY, 2017. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF