ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Harmilap Traders, New Delhi

ITA 851/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4107 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI C.L. SETHI, JM I.T. A. NO.851/DEL OF 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-2004 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS HARMILA P TRADERS, WARD 36(2), NEW DELHI. A-70, JAGAT PURI, NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, AR ORDER PER C.L. SETHI, JM: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2009 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) PE RTAINING TO THE ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH R EGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.6,37,352/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2 4. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADI NG OF BUILDING MATERIAL. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS AND INFORMATION, WHICH WERE EXAMINE D BY THE AO. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH COND UCTED U/S 132 OF THE ACT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S VISHAL IRON WORKS P . LTD., STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI ATUL KUMAR BANSAL WAS RECORDED, AND AS PER HIS STATEMENT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AFORESAID COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS OF PURCHASES AND SALES TO VARIOUS PARTIES. FROM THE D ETAILS, IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT A BILL DATED 10.8.2002 FOR RS.1,49,146/- WAS P ERTAINING TO THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. IN REPLY TO THE AOS QUERY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTAIN DETAILS INCLUDING COPY OF ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES AND SALES EF FECTED WITH M/S VISHAL IRON WORKS, AND FROM THE DETAILS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES OF RS.6,37,352/-, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO TO BE AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 5. ON AN APPEAL, CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBS ERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,37,352/-, BEING PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S VISHAL IRON WORKS (P) LTD., WERE DULY RECORDED AS PER ENTRY MADE BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WE FIND THAT THE AO CAME TO KNEW ONLY FR OM THE BOOKS OF THE 3 ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES OF RS.6,37,35 2/- FROM M/S VISHAL IRONS WORKS (P) LTD., WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS DULY ENTERED INTO ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LEARNED CIT( A) HAS, THUS, DELETED THIS ADDITION RIGHTLY. 6. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAK EN A GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED FRESH EVIDENCES WITHOUT GIV ING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BUT ON PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER, WE FIND TH AT NO FRESH EVIDENCES HAS EITHER BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) NOR CONSIDERED. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRY ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND COPY OF SUCH ENTRY WAS DULY PROVIDED TO THE AO AS WOULD BE CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THUS, IT IS NOT A CAS E WHERE ANY VIOLATION OF RULE 46A HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 8. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 7 TH MAY, 2010. (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (C.L. SETH I) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH MAY , 2010 VIJAY 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXVIII 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR