Sri Lalsingh Bhikaram (Expired), Belgaum V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Belgaum

ITA 91/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93486 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA N O . 91 /PNJ/20 13 : (A.Y 2007 - 08 ) SRI LALSINGH BHIKARAM (EXPIRED) PROP : ROADWAYS CORPORATION OF INDIA, OPP. DY. S.P. OFFICE, GOKAK 591 307, DIST. BELGAUM REPRESENTED BY SMT. MANJULA LALSINGH BHIKARAM (LEGAL HEIR) PAN : AKLPB6186F ( APPELLANT) VS. ITO, WARD - 1, GOKAK (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SURESH G. SHOLAPURMATH, CA REVENUE BY : MEHBOOB ALI KHAN, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 16 / 06 /201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 / 06 /201 5 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BELGAUM IN ITA NO. 469/BGM/09.10 DT. 18.3.2013 FOR THE A.Y 2007 - 08. SHRI SURESH G. SHOLAPURMATH, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI MEHBOOB ALI KHAN, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. AR THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY IN THE NAMES OF THE TRUCK OWNERS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DETAILS OF THE TRUCK OWNERS/DRIVERS AND THE DUES ALONGWITH THE VEHICLE NUMBERS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO BUT W ITHOUT 2 ITA NO. 91/PNJ/2013 (A.Y : 2007 - 08) ANY VERIFICATION, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAD RECOGNIZED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED ON 19.12.2006 AND HAD STILL PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE N AME OF THE ASSESSEE WHO NO MORE EXISTED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE LIABLE TO BE DELETED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS THE SU BMISSION THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRODUCED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS OF THE DUES TO THE TRUCK OWNERS/DRIVERS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUTSET, A PERU SAL OF PG. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE AO WAS WELL AWARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED ON 19.12.2006. THE AO WAS ALSO WELL AWARE THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAD CONTINUED THE BUSINESS WITH THE HELP OF RELATIVES TO WHOM SALARY HAD BEEN PAID. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS NO MORE, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE CANNOT SURVIVE, ESPECIALLY WHEN AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT ITSELF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECEASED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NON - EST AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND WE DO SO. EVEN COMING TO THE MERITS, ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF REGISTER AND HAS ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE OU TSTANDING PAYABLE ALONGWITH THE DATES, VEHICLE NUMBERS AND THE NAMES OF THE OWNERS/TRUCK DRIVERS OF THE VEHICLES. EVEN AFTER OBTAINING OF THESE EVIDENCES, THE AO HAS NOT DONE ANY VERIFICATION BUT HAS ONLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING MORE EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. WHAT IS MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE AO WANTS IS NOT COMING OUT OF THE RECORDS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE TDS CERTIFICATES 3 ITA NO. 91/PNJ/2013 (A.Y : 2007 - 08) ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTORS, THE REGISTER FOR DISBURSEMENT OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES TO THE TRUCK OW NERS WITH ALL THE PARTICULARS OF THE TRUCK, LIST OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE FREIGHT TO THE TRUCK OWNERS AND NO VERIFICATION HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO. THIS IS ALSO NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DELAYED PROVIDING THE INFORMATION. THE DETAILS CALLED FOR IN T HE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DT. 12.6.2009 HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH ON 16.7.2009 ITSELF. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DETAILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO. JUST BECAUSE THE AO HAS NOT DONE HIS VERIFICATION, IT CANNOT LEAD TO DISALLOWANCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT , EVEN ON MERITS, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) STANDS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/06/2015. S D / - (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 1 6 /06/ 201 5 *SSL* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 4 ITA NO. 91/PNJ/2013 (A.Y : 2007 - 08) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 16/06/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 7 /06/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 1 7 /06/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 1 7 /06/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 1 7 /06/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/06/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 7 /06/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER