Shiv Textiles, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(4), Surat

ITA 881/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9139 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Section: 143(3); 139

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.881 AND 882/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2003-2004 AND 2004-2005 SHIV TEXTILES 70-71, BALAJI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SAYAN, TALUKA OLPAD SURAT 394 130. PAN : AAWFS 6153 N VS ITO, WARD - 5(4) SURAT. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SONIA KUMAR, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 14/03/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/03/2016 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANC E OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATED I.E. 21.1.201 3 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A)-I FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 . 2. THESE APPEALS WERE PRESENTED IN THE TRIBUNAL ON 1.4.2013. THESE WERE LISTED ON THE BOARD ON 8.2.2016. THE AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SEEKI NG TIME OF ONE MONTH FOR FILING PAPER BOOK ETC. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURN ED TO 14.3.2016. ITA NO.881 AND 882/AHD/2013 2 MORE THAN ONE MONTH TIME WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSE E. VERBATIM SAME APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY SOME UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS SIGNING ON BEHALF OF HEMANT JADIA, ADVOCATE. IN THE APPLICATI ON, IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT DETAILS/PAPERS REQUIRED FOR THE SAID M ATTERS ARE UNDER COLLECTION/PREPARATION, HENCE, ONE MONTH TIME BE GR ANTED. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THIS APPLICATION, AND THEREFORE, ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION IS REJECTED ON T HE GROUND THAT IT HAS BEEN FILED JUST TO DELAY HEARING. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR, AND GONE THROUGH THE RECOR D CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 28.11.20 03 AND 18.10.2004 DECLARING THE TOTAL LOSS OF RS.15,965/- IN THE ASST T.YEAR 2003-04 AND TOTAL INCOME AT RS.14,467/- IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2004- 05. THE AO GOT INFORMATION FROM ITO, WARD-9(4), SURAT THAT CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY THE PARTNER, SMT. SAGUNABEN J. ROY FAILED TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE OF CAPITAL IN HER HAND. IT WAS TAXED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN HER HAND. HENCE, THE ACTION IS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING LY, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING HAS BEEN REOPENED. THE LD.AO HAS CONFRO NTED THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS TO EXPLAIN THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTI ON OF SMT. SAGUNABEN ROY, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. ACCORDING TO TH E AO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION, AND THEREFORE, HE M ADE ADDITION OF THE ALLEGED CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. THE FINDING BY THE A O IS VERBATIM SAME EXCEPT VARIATION IN THE AMOUNTS. THE FINDING RECOR DED BY THE AO IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 FROM PARA NO.4 READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.881 AND 882/AHD/2013 3 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SMT. SAGUNABEN J IVARAJBHAI ROY, THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM HAD INFACT FILED A FAL SE RETURN OF INCOME AS NO INCOME WAS EARNED BY/OR ACCRUED TO THE SAID ASSESSEE BUT IT WAS INCOME OF THE CONCERN OF THE MD . PATEL GROUP, WHICH HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROUGH HER AND OTHER SIMILA RLY PLACED PARTIES. IT ALSO ARGUED THAT SINCE THE M.D. PATEL G ROUP HAS FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION A ND OWNED UP THE SAID AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME SO THE SAME COULD NOT BE TAXED INTO THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONCE AGAIN REQUIRED TO SUBSTANT IATE ALL THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS WITH CONCRETE SUPPORTING BUT IT C OULD NOT DO IT. THE DETAILS OF DECLARATION BY THE MD GROUP BEFORE T HE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND PARTY WISE BIFURCATION OF THE AMOUNTS AND SPECIFICALLY A.Y. WISE WERE CALLED FOR. THE ASS ESSEE WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT ORDER AND HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORDER SO, A S TO CLARIFY THAT HOW THE A.Y. IN QUESTION WERE UNDER STAY OF TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT ORDER, BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIAT E IT WITH ANY SUPPORTING. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNIT Y BUT IT COULD NOT SUBMIT FURTHER DETAILS SO, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS NO OPTION OUT TO FINALIZE THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THIS CASE SUGGESTS THAT OR IGINALLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE PROTECTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF SMT. SAGUNABEN JIVRAJBHAI ROY, THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AN D THE AO OF SMT. SAGUNABEN JIVRAJBHAI ROY HAS INTIMATED TO THIS OFFI CE TO ADD THE SAME SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM . 7. THE FINDINGS OF THE ITO-9(4), SURAT, IN THE CASE OF SMT. SAGUNABEN J. ROY ARE NOT REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF REPETITION AS THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN, DISCUSSED IN THE SHOW CA USE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE HAND OF SMT. SAGUNABEN J . ROY HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD CIT(A)-II, SURAT VIDE ORDER DATED 11/02/2008 IN APPEAL NO,CAS-V/325/2006-07 SO, IT IS REQUIRED TO B E ADDED SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ITA NO.881 AND 882/AHD/2013 4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND THE DISCUSSION MADE IN TH E SHOW CAUSE THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,806/- IS ADDED SUBSTANT IALLY IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ITS INCOME AND HAS FU RNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME SO PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE I T ACT ARE BEING INITIATED SEPAR ATELY. 8. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE IS RE- COMPUTED AS UNDER: TOTAL LOSS AS PER COMPUTATION OF INCOME (-) RS.15, 965/- ADD:(L) AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN PARAS RS. 1,50,806/- TOTAL INCOME RS .1,34,841/- ROUNDEDOFF RS.1,34,8 40/- 9. ASSESSED U/S. 143(3) R.WS. 147 OF THE IT ACT. IN TEREST U/S. 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234 D OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE IS CH ARGED. CREDIT FOE PREPAID TAXES GIVEN AS PER CALCULATION ENCLOSED AND DEMAND NOTICE/CHALLAN/REFUND ORDER (AS THE CASE MAY BE) IS SUED AS PER THE CALCULATION ENCLOSED. PENALTY NOTICE U/S. 271(1) (C ) OF THE IT ACT IS ISSUED FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER. 4. THE APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, BECAUSE, NEIT HER BEFORE THE AO NOR THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE COULD BRING ANY EVIDENCE EXHIBI TING THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL IN ITS HANDS. THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE CASE OF THE PARTNER ALSO, RATHER, STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHE (PARTNER) HAD FILED A FALSE RETURN OF INCOME, AS NO INCOME WAS EARNED BY OR ACCRUED TO HER. IF THAT BE THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ITA NO.881 AND 882/AHD/2013 5 CAPITAL CAME TO ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE APPEALS. THEY ARE DISM ISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER