Shri Tulsibhai Manjibhai Viradia, V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(4), Surat

ITA 726/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89394 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2006
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 234B; 131

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD 00 , ! ' #$, % & BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NO. 726/AHD/2006 % ) *)/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 TULSIBHAI MANJIBHAI VIRADIA 45, LAXMI PARK SOCIETY AT & PO, VYARA, DIST. SURAT. VS ITO, WARD - 6(4) SURAT. +, / (APPELLANT) -. +, / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI R.N. VEPARI REVENUE BY : SHRI NIMESH YADAV / DATE OF HEARING : 10/04/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/04/2015 // O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) IV, SURAT DATED 14.10.2004. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE IT S ORDER DATED 17.9.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.726/AHD/2006 FOR THE ASS TT.YEAR 2001-02. THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THE APPEAL FILED WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY ONE YEAR AND 90 DAYS, A ND THE REASON GIVEN FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS NOT FOUND TO BE PLAUSI BLE ONE. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AND THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN TAX APPEAL NO.132 OF 2010 ORDER DATED 29.6.2011 CONDONED THE D ELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BY IMPOSING COST OF RS.2500/ - AND RESTORING THE ITA NO.726/AHD/2006 2 MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR DISPOSI NG OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT, HENCE, THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE GROUND NO.I OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: I. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.61,000/- WHEN ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AMOUNT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADDED. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, AND THEREFOR E, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. THE GROUND NO.II OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: II. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,21,551/- IN RESPECT OF LIABILITIES WHICH HAD NOT CEASED NOR WERE THEY REMITTED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR RS.14,21, 551/- AS LIABILITIES TOWARDS 9 PERSONS. THE AO ADDED THE AFORESAID LIABI LITY OF RS.14,21,551/- BY TREATING THE SAME AS NON-EXISTENT . 8. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E AO. 9. BEFORE US, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LIABILITIES IN QUESTION WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUEN T YEARS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE FILED THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ALL NINE CREDITORS, WHICH ARE KEPT AT PAGE NOS.17 TO 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE FIND THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT OUT OF NINE C REDITORS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF TWO PA RTIES ONLY. WE FIND THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER COULD FURNISH C OMPLETE ADDRESSES OF ITA NO.726/AHD/2006 3 THE REMAINING SEVEN PARTIES BEFORE US, NOR COULD LE AD ANY EXPLANATION FOR BEING NOT ABLE TO FURNISH COMPLETE ADDRESS OF T HE SAID SEVEN PARTIES. 11. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF TWO PARTIES VIZ. SHRI DA LABHAI KANABHAI GAMIT AND PITHABHAI JASABHAI SOLANKI, OF WHICH ADDR ESSES WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO UNDER SECTI ON 131 OF THE ACT. THE SAID TWO PARTIES IN THEIR STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SECTION 131 BEFORE THE AO STATED THAT NO AMOUNT WAS RECEIVABLE BY THEM FROM THE ASSESSEE, AS AT THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YE AR. 12. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY SUBM ISSION IN RESPECT OF THESE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY TWO CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES TH ESE CREDITORS DENIED OF HAVING ANY AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE, AS AT THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, AND WHY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THEIR STATEMENTS. 13. THE ONLY SUBMISSION BEFORE US OF THE ASSESSEE I S THAT THE PAYMENT TO NINE CREDITORS WERE MADE IN THE SUBSEQUE NT YEAR, AND ONLY DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS THE COPY OF A LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR, AS APPEARING IN T HE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. WE FIND ON PERU SAL OF THESE LEDGER ACCOUNTS THAT THE SAID LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOWS THE PAY MENT HAVING BEEN MADE IN CASH ON DIFFERENT DATES RANGING FROM 5.5.20 01 TO 31.3.2003. WE FIND THAT NO SUPPORTING VOUCHERS OR MONEY RECEIP TS IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID LEDGER ACCOUNT COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE A SSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE WAS NO FAULT IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN NOT ACCEPTING TH E SAME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE GR OUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.726/AHD/2006 4 14. THE GROUND NO.III OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: III. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT INTEREST U/S.234B H AS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED. 15. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO SUBMISSION WAS MADE BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL, AND ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY THE 30 TH APRIL, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER