Umesh Joshi, New Delhi V. ACIT , Circle 59(1), New Delhi

ITA 7321/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1669 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M BARNWAL
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 133(6); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH FRIDAY: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A. NO.898/DEL/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7321/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) AND ITA NO.7321/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) SH. UMESH JOSHI C/O PRAKASH LEGAL ADVISERS, UG-82, WORLD TRADE CENTRE BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. PAN ABMPJ 6021B VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 59(1) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. PANKAJ GARG, SR. ADV. SH. MILIND GARG, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. M. BARNWAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 07.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.05.2020 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE STAY APPLICATION SEEKS THE STAY OF DEMAND OF RS .3,21,742/- PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND INCOME TA X APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, NEW DELHI {CIT (A)} FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR: 2014-15. 2.0 WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRST. T HE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS 2 SA NO.898/DEL/2019 & ITA NO.7321/DEL/2019 SH. UMESH JOSHI VS. ACIT FILED DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.21,00,291/-. SUBSEQ UENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS DUE TO T HE REASON LARGE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE A LIS T OF SUNDRY CREDITORS ALONG WITH THE POSTAL ADDRESSES. NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WERE SENT TO THE CREDITORS ON A TEST- CHECK BASIS. NOTICES SENT TO THREE PARTIES WERE RET URNED UNDELIVERED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO ADD THE AMOUNT SHOWN AGAINST CREDIT ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF THESE THREE PARTIES AN D THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF RS.30,17,600/- ON GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF THESE THREE LIABILITIES. THE LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHED THIS TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE UPHOLDING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 3.0 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THESE AMOUNT HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY PAID TO THE THR EE PARTIES AND THAT EVEN THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOTED IN PARA-7 OF HIS ORD ER THAT ALTHOUGH THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT TO PAY THE OUTSTA NDING AMOUNT BUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN THESE FACTS WE RE POINTED OUT AND SUBJECTED TO THE ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THE 3 SA NO.898/DEL/2019 & ITA NO.7321/DEL/2019 SH. UMESH JOSHI VS. ACIT PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT, THUS, EVEN THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACCE PTED THAT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. 3.1 ON A QUERY FOR THE BENCH, THE LD. AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE AGREED THAT IF GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD GE T THE FACT OF THE PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE VERIFIED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 4.0 THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACE D HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OPPOSED THE PRA YER OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR BEING PROVIDED WITH ANOTHER OPPOR TUNITY TO GET THE FACT OF PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE VERIFIED. 5.0 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND AFTER HAVIN G GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE NOTE THAT EVEN THE LD. CIT (A) HA S CLEARLY STATED IN PARA-7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE GOING ON. WE FAIL T O UNDERSTAND THE REASON BEHIND THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE A T THE TIME OF THE ONGOING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT ONLY REMAINS TO BE VERIFIED AS TO HOW AND WHEN THESE PAYMENT WERE MADE AND THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS THE BEST PERSON TO DO SO. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF SU BSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE 4 SA NO.898/DEL/2019 & ITA NO.7321/DEL/2019 SH. UMESH JOSHI VS. ACIT RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACT OF PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE TO THE THREE PARTIES AS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO ALLOW THE SAME, IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT AFTER SUCH VERIFICATION. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER SHALL AFFORD PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR GETT ING HIS CLAIM OF PAYMENTS BEING VERIFIED. 6.0 SINCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REST ORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ABOVE CAPTIONED STAY APPLICA TION BECOMES IN FRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. 7.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE STAY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/ 05/2020 . SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 01/05/2020 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT 5 SA NO.898/DEL/2019 & ITA NO.7321/DEL/2019 SH. UMESH JOSHI VS. ACIT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI