M/s Dimple Knitwears, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 721/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9794 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 721/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S DIMPLE KNITWEARS, VS. THE DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAAFD82291 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K .MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.07.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA DATED 21.3.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS CHALLENGE D THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,54,230/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 41(1) ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT BALANCE OF M/S KANPUR WOOLEN INDUSTRIES. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF THE SUNDRY CREDITOR IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S KANPUR WOOLEN INDUSTRIES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,5 4,229/- AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,54,229/- ON ACCO UNT OF SUNDER CREDITOR WRITTEN OFF. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT 2 ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED 13.12.2007 IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE SIMILAR ADDITION OF RS. 1,54,229/- IN RESPECT OF M/S KANPUR WOOLEN INDUSTRIES U/S 41(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 1 9.12.2013 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE SIMILAR ADDITION IN PRECEDING YEAR I.E . ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, NO FURTHER APPEAL HAS BE EN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN WHICH ASSESSEE CLAIMED T HAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE WRITTEN OFF IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BUT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND ADDITION IS MA DE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE ADDITION IS MADE IN THE PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE ADDITION HAS BECOME FINAL AS ASSESS EE DID NOT FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, SAME ADDITION CANNO T BE MADE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E 2006-07 IN APPEAL. IT WOULD AM OUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I SET ASIDE T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,54,230/-. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH JULY, 2016 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR