Shri Manojkumar S Pacheriwala, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Surat

ITA 945/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 94520514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH , ,, , ! ! ! ! . .. .# ## # . .. .$%& $%& $%& $%&, , , , #' #' #' #' # ( # ( # ( # ( BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.945/AHD/2009 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2005-2006] SHRI MANOJKUMAR S. PACHERIWALA PROP. OF GINI INTERNATIONAL 501, ANMOL TEXTILE MARKET RING ROAD, SURAT. PAN : ABJPP 3803 E. /VS. ITO, WARD-2(3) SURAT. ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) . / 0 #/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.N. VEPARI 2 / 0 #/ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.R. PATHAK 3 / '/ DATE OF HEARING : 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2011 4%5 / '/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 ST DECEMBER, 2011 #6 / O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A)-II, SURAT DATED 31.12.2008 FOR A.Y.2005-2006. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THE APPEAL. (I) REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN CONFIRMING REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT PARTICULARLY WH EN THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS O F THE TRANSACTION. (2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF LOSS DUE TO FLOODS. (3) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE BOOK RESULT HA S BEEN WRONGLY REJECTED, THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED. (II) DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES - RS.6,72,63,980/- ITA NO.945/AHD/2009 -2- (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES. (1) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFI CATION WHATSOEVER FOR CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES WHEN PURCHASE/SALES WERE OF EXACT QUANTITIES, PAYMENTS M ADE BY CHEQUES AND COMPLETE DETAILS FRONT CENTRAL EXCISE D GFT & CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES CORROBORATED EXPORTS. (2) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DISREGARDED THE EVIDENCE, MENT IONED INCORRECT ANAL IRRELEVANT FACTS. (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAVING HELD BOTH PURCHASES AND EXPORTS AS BOGUS, NO ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED, IN ANY CASE. (4) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH VARIOUS JUDGME NTS INCLUDING THAT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. (III) UNSECURED LOANS:- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIR MING ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/-( OUT OF RS.20,00,000) U/ S. 68 IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS INTRODUCED BY SIX PARTIES WHEN CONFIRMAT IONS AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND THAT THEY WERE ALL ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX, AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEI VED RECEIVED/REPAID BY CHEQUES AND LENDERS HAVE SHOWN I N BALANCE SHEETS WHEREVER THEY WERE OUTSTANDING. (IV) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.2,57,633/- BEING 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES WHEN THE ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED WITH THE APPELLANT C OULD NOT PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE BOOKS AND VO UCHERS WERE DESTROYED IN FLOODS. (V) MISCELLANEOUS:- (I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED INTEREST U/S.234B OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING ITA NO.945/AHD/2009 -3- ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN A PPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1963 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES. IN THE SAID APPLICATION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE THE AO HAS DOUBTED THE PURCHASES, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOUBTED THE SALES AS WELL AS THEIR R EALISATION. BUT IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, HE HAD NOT SO INDICATED A ND ONLY IN HIS ORDER, HE HAS BROUGHT THIS ISSUE AND FOR THIS REASON, THE ASSESSE E WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE COPIES OF SALES INVOICES/SHIPPING BILLS COUNTERSIGN ED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE INVOLVED, ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NECESSARY AND HENCE, WE ADMIT THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES. WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A O FOR FRESH DECISION IN LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOW SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE AND HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE DECISION, THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON AT THIS STAGE, AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION IN THIS REGARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT (JUDICIAL MEMBER) A.K. GARODIA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)