THE DCIT, (CENTRAL) - 1, Indore V. SMT. RANI KATARIA, Ratlam

ITSSA 43/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2234 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Section: 69; 148

Judgement Text

SMT. TANUJA SAHU ITA NO. 221/IND/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.221/IND/2015 A.Y.2008-09 SMT. TANUJA SAHU VIDISHA ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER VIDISHA ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI SUMIT NEMA AND SHRI AMIT JAIN RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 15.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 1 ST .12.2015 O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 28.1 .2015. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCES OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING TH E SMT. TANUJA SAHU ITA NO. 221/IND/2015 2 ADDITION OF RS. 7,89,102/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF WHOL ESALE TRADING OF GRAINS CARRIED ON UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. P.K. INDUSTRIES. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING INCOME AT RS.3,33,530/-. SOME INFORMATION WA S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT HUGE AND VERY FREQUENT CASH WITHDRAWALS BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH IRREGULARITIES IN THE SALES. THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S 14 8 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER HEARI NG THE ASSESSEE, ADDITION OF RS.7,89,102/- U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT WAS MADE. AGAINST THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT BUT HE SUSTAINED THE ADDI TION OF RS. 7,89,102/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. NOW THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL. SMT. TANUJA SAHU ITA NO. 221/IND/2015 3 3. BEFORE ME, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DR EW MY ATTENTION TO PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE GOODS FROM ONE MR. DINE SH KUMAR VIJAYKUMAR AND AT PAGE 10 THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID. SIMILARLY AT PAGE 15 THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,15,685/- WAS PAYABLE TO RAJENDRA TRADER. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AMOUNT WAS PAID ON 25.11.2011 VIDE CHEQUE NO. 375811 AND THE ACCOUNT IS SETTLED. IT SHOWS THAT NO AMOUNT IS PAYABLE . A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT IS PLACED AT PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID RS.3,71,092/- TO MAA AMBE TRADERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE GOODS BUT THE QUALITY OF GOODS WAS NOT U P TO THE MARK. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID BUT THEREAFTER THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY TAKING SOME OTHER GOODS AND THE AMOUNT IS SETTLED WHICH IS APPARENT FROM PAGES 13 AND 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, THERE I S NO SMT. TANUJA SAHU ITA NO. 221/IND/2015 4 QUESTION OF ANY ADDITION BECAUSE IT IS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. 4. THE LEARNED DR IN HIS TURN TRIED TO CONTROVERT TH E ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE AND SUBMITTED THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE IN HER FAVOUR. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF TH E VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEV EL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I, THEREFORE, IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE ABOVE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SMT. TANUJA SAHU ITA NO. 221/IND/2015 5 PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 ST DECEMBER, 2015 SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER 31 ST DECEMBER, 2015 DN/-