M/s. Satya International, Ahmedabad V. The JT.CIT.Range-6, Surat

ITA 883/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72900 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.883/AHD/2011 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S.SATYA INTERNATIONAL C/O.KETAN H.SHAH, ADVOCATE 903, SAPPHIRE COMPLEX CG ROAD,NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD / VS. THE JT.CIT RANGE-6 SURAT ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAOFS 0992 H ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K.DHANESTA, SR.DR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 04/01/2014 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/02/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 17/12/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2007- 08. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED 1. IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN REFERENCE TO SECT ION 41(1) OF THE ACT THEREBY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,85,182/-. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS ITA NO.883/AHD/ 2011 M/S.SATYA INTERNATIONAL VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS PRAYED THAT BO TH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT S AS WELL AS LAW, THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 24/12/2009, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,85,182/- U/S.41(1) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO VIDE PARA-6 OF HIS ORDER, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A. O. AND STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF DECISIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE FACTS ON RECORD. HE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED ANY OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LIABILITIES SHOWN IN THE BALANC E SHEET HAD CEASED TO EXIST AND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PA Y THEM. IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT THE AMOUNTS HAD REMAINED UNPAID FOR VERY LONG PERIOD, MUCH BEYOND LIMITATION. THE APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT CONFIRMATIONS FROM HIS CREDITORS EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE ME WHICH ONLY SHOWS THAT THESE LIABILITIES HAVE CEASED TO EXIST AND ARE BEING CARRIED IN THE ACCOUNTS MERELY TO AVOID PAYME NT OF TAXES. MERELY PLACING RELIANCE ON DECISIONS WITHOUT SHOWING THAT THEY WERE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF HIS CASE WILL NOT HELP THE APPELLAN T. THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE CONFIRMATIONS ON RECORD TO SHOW TH AT THE LIABILITY WAS GENUINE OR HE COULD HAVE SHOWN SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTI ONS OF REPAYMENT OR THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DISPUTED AND PENDING RECONCI LIATION. THIS WOULD SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS THOUGH PENDING FOR LONG , WERE STILL REQUIRED TO BE PAID BACK. NONE OF THIS HAS EVEN BE EN ATTEMPTED BY THE APPELLANT. ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATIONS FROM OR CO MMUNICATIONS FROM THE CREDITORS SHOW THAT THE LIABILITIES WERE NOT GE NUINE; THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 3 THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 03/02/2014. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO VERIFY WHETHER ANY PA YMENT HAS BEEN MADE ITA NO.883/AHD/ 2011 M/S.SATYA INTERNATIONAL VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN DISPUTE AND MATTER WAS A DJOURNED TO 04/02/2014. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE, HOWEVER, AN APPLICATION DATED 04/02/2014 FROM ONE SHRI KETAN H. SHAH, ADVOCATE HAS BEEN FILED. FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS TRANSPIRED THA T NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ADVOCATE TO REPRESE NT THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI KETAN H.SHAH ADVOCATE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ON MERITS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSE E. 3.1. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO, NO C ONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS WERE FILED. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATI ON, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THAT THE LIABILITIES STILL SUBSISTS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) VIDE PARA-6 OF HIS ORDER HAS DE CIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY TRIED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE FACTS ON RECORD. BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL ALSO, NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN FILED. MOREOVER, NO ON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE, LETTER D ATED 04/02/2014 ON BEHALF OF SHRI KETAN H.SHAH, ADVOCATE IS ON RECORD REQUESTING TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION AS RELIED B EFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND DECISIONS ENCLOSED WITH THE SAID LETTER DATED 04/02 /2014. SHRI KETAN H.SHAH, ADVOCATE HAS NOT FILED ANY VAKALATNAMA OR POWER OF ATTORNEY, ITA NO.883/AHD/ 2011 M/S.SATYA INTERNATIONAL VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - THEREFORE, THE LETTER DATED 04/02/2014 CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS A PPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PLACED ON RECORD REGARDING CONFIRMATION FR OM THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CONFIR MATION BY THE SUNDRY CREDITORS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLO WED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 6/ 2/ 2014 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-IV, SURAT 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD