Sushil Kumar Nahata, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-49(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 987/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9148 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL SINGHI FCA LD
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

I T A NO. 987/KOL/16 SUSHIL KUMAR NAHATA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,DBENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE: SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 987/KOL/2016 A.Y: 2010-11 SUSHIL KUMAR NAHATA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER PAN: ADFPN0047E WARD 49(2), KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPEARANCES BY : SHRI SUNIL SINGHI, FCA, LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT, LD.DR FOR TH E REVENUE DATE OF HEARING : 23-02-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 -03-2017 O R D E R SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DT : 08-03- 2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS), 15, KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS EIGHT GROUNDS AMONGST WHICH THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED TO TAKE UP GROUND NOS.1 & 2 AS PRELIMINARY ISSUE. THER EFORE, WE PROCEEDED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON SUCH GROUNDS. 3. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,59,000/-, WHICH WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD IRRECOVERABLE BALA NCES I T A NO. 987/KOL/16 SUSHIL KUMAR NAHATA 2 WRITTEN OFF. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AO THE AS SESSEE PROVIDED THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES, M/ S. APURBA ART, NAVI MUMBAI (RS.2,34,000/-) AND M/S. DEEPJAYA GRAPHICS, KOLKATA (RS.2,25,000/-). ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. IN RESPONSE TO SU CH NOTICE, M/S. APURVA ART, NAVI MUMBAI VIDE LETTER DATED 18-1 2-2012 STATED THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY SALE/PURCHASE/ADV ANCE, LOANS TAKEN OR GIVEN TO/FROM THE SAID PARTY DURING THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 OR PREVIOUS NEXT YEAR. THE NOTICE U/S. 133( 6) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS SENT TO M/S. DEEPJAYA GRAPHICS IN TH E GIVEN ADDRESS WAS RETURNED WITH POSTAL REMARKS NOT KNOWN . THEREFORE, AN INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED BY THE AO, WHO VIDE REPORT DATED 20-12-2013 STATED THAT THERE WAS NO EXISTENCE OF M/S.DEEPJAYA GRAPHICS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SINCE GENUI NENESS OF CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF RS.2,34,000/- AND R S.2,25,000/- HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY PRODUCING ANY AUTHENTIC EVIDENCE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS.4,59,000/- (RS.2,34 ,000 + RS.2,25,000) AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT- A. BEFORE HIM THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON 29-01- 2016. THE CIT-A AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAID SUBMIS SIONS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF BOTH THE PARTIES FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SALES WERE AFFE CTED TO A.Y 2010-11 AND THE OTHER DETAILS I.E WHEN AMOUNTS ARE WRITTEN OFF, COPY OF INVOICES & DELIVERY CHALLANS IN ORIGINAL, E XTRACT OF SALE REGISTER AND COPY OF AUDITED A/C AND BREAK UP OF SU NDRY DEBTORS. SINCE NO BODY WAS ATTENDED BY PRODUCING AN Y I T A NO. 987/KOL/16 SUSHIL KUMAR NAHATA 3 DOCUMENT/EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT-A, THE CIT-A CONFI RMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.4,59,000/- . 5. BEFORE US THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCE/DOCUMENT REGARDING TH E IMPUGNED ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF AND FURTHER SUBMITS THAT NOW T HE ASSESSEE IS READY TO PRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE H IS CLAIM. THUS, HE URGED TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF T HE AO FOR HIS FRESH CONSIDERATION. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES. 7. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENT ATION AND EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM ON BEHALF OF ASS ESSEE, THE CIT-A CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION FOR NON COMPL IANCE. WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE CIT-A THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED O NLY WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THERE WAS NO PROPER REPRESENTATION B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FILED DETAILS OF AMOUNT DEBITE D UNDER THE HEAD SALES TAX PAID TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, COP IES OF CHALLANS OF VAT & CST, COPIES OF NOTICE OF DEMAND A ND ORDER SHEET UNDER SALES TAX PROCEEDINGS AND COPY OF LETTE R OF ASSESSEE TO APURVA ART REQUESTING TO PROVIDE FORM C. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOW READY TO SUBMIT ALL SUCH DETAILS AS DIRECTED BY THE CIT-A BEFORE THE AO, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS FRESH CONSIDERATION AND TO PASS AN ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE A SSESSEE I T A NO. 987/KOL/16 SUSHIL KUMAR NAHATA 4 SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE REQUISITE EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM PROPERLY. THEREFORE, GROUNDS 1 & 2 ARE ALLOWE D AND OTHER GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17/03 /2017 SD/- SD/- DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 17 - 03-2017 *PP/SPS: COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR NAHATA 36/1 CANAL STREET, SREEBHUMI, KOLKATA-700048. 2 THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS)/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(2), 54/1 RAF I AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700016. 3 4. THE CIT(A) THE CIT 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR I T A NO. 987/KOL/16 SUSHIL KUMAR NAHATA 5