ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Grid Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 727/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2715 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.727/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 727 /DEL/201 2 A.Y. : 20 0 6 - 0 7 A CIT, CIRCLE 1 2 (1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S GIRI BUILDWELL (P) LTD. S-423, GREATER KAILASH, PART-II, NEW DELHI (PAN:AABCG2921Q) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : 11 1111 11- -- -12 1212 12- -- -201 201 201 2015 55 5 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 04 0404 04- -- -1 11 1- -- -201 201 201 2016 66 6 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU : : : : J JJ JM MM M THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VIII, NEW DELH I DATED 19.12.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT ON FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF STATIC CRE DITORS. 2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNSE CURED LOAN. ITA NO.727/DEL/2012 2 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABVOE AT THE TIME OF THE HE ARING. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IS ENGAED IN BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 13,30,038/- ON 29.11.2006. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) ON 15.2.2008. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCR UTINY AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS SENT ON 2.11.2007. AGAIN NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AL ONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS SENT ON 24.7.2008. IN RESPONSE T O NOTICE, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED FORM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMI TTED THE REQUISITE DETAILS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. A.R. PRODUCED BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN TEST CHECKED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, AFTER CO NSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AT RS. 61,30,038/- VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 22.12.2008 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND MADE THE ADDITIONS. 3. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.20 11 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS I N DISPUTE. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITE RATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 6. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FI LED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE ITA NO.727/DEL/2012 3 AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND A GAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPAR TE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RE LEVANT RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE FIND THAT LD . FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE NO. 1 IN DISPUTE BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATE D THE ISSUE NO. 1 IN DISPUTE AS UNDER VIDE PARA NO. 3.4 AT PAGE 2 OF HIS IMPUGNED O RDER. 3.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION S MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO. ON CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT THE LD. AO HAS MADE T HE ADDITION OF RS. 44 LACS ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y DID NOT EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LOANS WERE RAISE D. WERE RAISED. HE ALSO TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE OUTSTANDING FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. HOWEVER, THE ID. AO HAS RECORDED NO FINDING THAT THE LOANS IN QUESTION WERE BOGUS OR DOUBTFUL. THE ID. AO HAS NOT ALSO RECORDED ANY FIND ING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 44 LACS HAS BEEN WRITTEN BACK BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND NOT OFFERED TO TAX. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES, MAKING ADDITION MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE OUTSTANDING FOR LONG PERIOD OF TIME DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE JUSTIFIED . THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS FROM MIS. A.F. FARMS AND HORTICULTURE AND MR. SANDEEP CHONA. THIS ITSELF IS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT EVEN THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT WRITTEN OFF T HE OUTSTANDING ITA NO.727/DEL/2012 4 LOANS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ID. AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IS ACCORDINGLY, DELETED. 7.1 ON GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE L D. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGH TLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE NO. 1, AND U PHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO. 1 R AISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 8. WE FIND THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE NO. 2 IN DISPUTE BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE NO. 2 IN DISPU TE AS UNDER VIDE PARA NO. 3.8 AT PAGE 3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. 3.8 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ID. AO. ON CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 L ACS HAS BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT COM PANY. A SUM OF RS. 1 LAC WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FRO M MIS. D. TARIKA AND ALLIED PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VIDE CHEQUE NO. 204875 AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED W ITH BHAGYODAYA URBAN CORPORATIVE BANK LTD. SIMILARLY, A NOTHER SUM OF RS. 1 LAC WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT NO 1009211 MAINTAINED BY MIS. D. TARIKA AND ALLIED PRODUCTS (P ) LTD. WITH ABN AMRO BANK LTD. AND WAS CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT NO 1009276 MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH THE SAME B ANK. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE ID. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN MAKING THE SUBJECT ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF R S. 2 LACS HAS NOT ITA NO.727/DEL/2012 5 BEEN FOUND RECORDED IN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE A PPELLANT COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS DELETED. 8.1 ON GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE L D. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHT LY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE NO. 2, AND U PHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO. 2 R AISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/1/2016. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [O.P. KANT O.P. KANT O.P. KANT O.P. KANT] ]] ] [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 04/1/2016 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES