M/s. Usha Pollutech Eng. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 78/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3814 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H L DIHANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY MISHRA

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 78/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 78/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 M/S USHA POL L UTECH ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., C/O SANJAY MISHRA FACTUM LAWYERS (ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS), 9/10, SUBHASH NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 027 (PAN : AAACU 0218K) VS. ITO, WARD - 18(2), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. SANJAY MISHRA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. HL DIHANA, C.I.T.(D.R.) ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 30.9.2 010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` 6,2 0,315/- U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO. 78/DEL/2011 2 3. IN THIS CASE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE DETAILS/CONFIRMATION/EVIDENCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS/SECURED LOAN. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO C ONDUCTED ENQUIRIES BY ISSUING LETTER U/S. 133(6). HE FOUND DEFICIENCIE S IN THIS REGARD. ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF ENTIRE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO ` 1395530/-. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE APPEALE D BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND DELETED ALL THE ADDITIONS EXCEPT M/S SWASTIK PIPES. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, PAPERS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND HE FOUND FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES :- IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 27.11.2007, NAME OF PROPRIETOR HAS BEEN SHOWN AS SHRI ANIL GUPT A, WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE BALANCE OF ` 6,20,315/-. HOWEVER, IN THE DETAIL FILED LATER ON ALONGWITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS, THOUGH, BALANCE AGAINST M/S USHA POLLUTECH ENGINEERING (P) LTD. HAS BEEN SHOWN AT ` 6,20,315/- THE NAME OF PROPRIETOR HAS BEEN SHO WN AS SHRI VINOD KUMAR AND COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF SHRI V INOD KUMAR HAS ALSO BEEN PRODUCED. THEREFORE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ITA NO. 78/DEL/2011 3 TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THERE IS ANOMALY IN F ILING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE IDENTITY OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER HE IS SH. ANIL GUPTA OR IS SHRI VINOD KUMAR. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT THIS PROVES THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. THEREFORE, HE HELD TH AT ADDITION U/S. 68 IN THIS REGARD WAS SUSTAINED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED. WE FIND THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED B EFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE CONFIRMA TION THERE IS CONTRADICTION REGARDING THE NAME OF THE CREDITORS. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO CONFUSION IN THIS REGARD AND IF OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE , HE WILL BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THE ACTUAL CREDITORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 7. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT HAVE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THIS PROPOSITION. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISS UE AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ITA NO. 78/DEL/2011 4 ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THIS REGARD. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/6/2011 UPO N CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 13/6/2011 SRB 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, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES