ITO 24(1)(3), MUMBAI V. BEJO P VERGJESE, MUMBAI

ITA 8325/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5134 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO. 8325/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2 4 ( 1 ) ( 3 ), C-13, 5 TH FL.,ROOM NO.501, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051. / VS. BEJO P VERGHESE OMEGA ELECTRONICS, 217, BOMBAY TALKIES COMPOUND, SHREE RAM MARG, MALAD(W), MUMBAI-400064 ( & / APPELLANT) .. ( ' & / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AABPP6494N & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI GANESH BARE ' & * /RESPONDENT BY : NO NE * - / DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2013 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) DATED 3.9.20 10. 2. ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHE THER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.28,11,536/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS, WHICH WERE BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE PREC EDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, WE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. DR RELIED O N THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF TH E SUNDRY CREDITORS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO COULD NOT VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. HOWEVER, THE ATTENTION OF THE DR WAS D RAWN THAT THE SAID CREDITORS ARE BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND HOW THE SAID SUNDRY I.T.A. NO. 8325/MUM/2010 2 CREDITORS CONSIDERED AS ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INCO ME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LD. DR COULD NOT REPLY TO THE ABO VE QUERY EXCEPT RELYING ON THE ORDER OF AO. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS S TATED THAT THE AO HAD WORKED OUT OLD SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THOSE HAD BEEN ADDED AFTER CON SIDERING THE PURCHASE DURING THE YEAR. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT CAN NEVER BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT WAS OUTSTANDING AS ON 1.4.2004 I.E. ON THE OPENING DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE MAY ALSO STATE THAT TH E LD. DR ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO WHAT ARE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ACCEPTED BY LD. CI T(A) WHICH MAY BE SAID TO BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I NCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AS CONTENDED BY DEPARTMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) REJECTING THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2013. E F 12TH DECEMBER, 2013 * SD SD ( / RAJENDRA) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & / THE APPELLANT 2. ' & / THE RESPONDENT. 3. J ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. J / CIT CONCERNED 5. K 'M , - M , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - M , /ITAT, MUMBAI