Heritage Board Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 6/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1077 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , ( .) , BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER (SS) ./ I.T(SS).A. NO.6/AHD/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) HERITAGE BOARD PVT.LTD. 306, ISCON MALL STAR BAZAR AHMEDABAD / VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) AHMEDABAD % & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCH 5235 Q ( %( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENT ) %( + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HIREN TRIVEDI, AR WITH SHRI G.M. THAKER, AR )*%( , + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL,CIT-DR -. , /& / DATE OF HEARING 19/10/2015 0123 , /& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/11/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-III, AHMEDAB AD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 13/12/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANTS CASE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITIO N OF IT(SS)A NO.6/AH D/2012 HERITAGE BOARD PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - RS.3,88,900 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR STOCK DISCREPANCY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS VERY WEL L EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STOCK FOUND DURING H COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE STOCK RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR WITHDRAW AY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE A SEARCH ACTIO N U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 15/10/2008. DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND VALUED AT R.3,88,900 /-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) R.W.S.153B( 1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 28/12/2010, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,88,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE SEARCH/SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD .CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISS ED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), NOW THE AS SESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. HE SUBM ITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED BY TH E DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY THAT THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS WASTAGE AND DEFECTIVE STOCK ACCUMULATED OVER TH E YEARS. HE IT(SS)A NO.6/AH D/2012 HERITAGE BOARD PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE STOCK WAS SOLD AT R S.43,730/- AND WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS INCOM E. HE SUBMITTED THAT ENTRIES FOR WASTAGE OF SUCH GOODS ARE DULY ACCOUNTE D ON YEAR-TO-YEAR BASIS IN ACTUAL ACCOUNTS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT-DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THER E WAS NO EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT THE STOCK, IN FACT, WAS WASTAGE OF THE EARLIER YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, THEREFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN M AKING THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE THAT T HE STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IS DEFECTIVE OR UNUSABLE. NO INSTA NCES WERE PLACED BEFORE HIM REGARDING THE SALE OF SUCH STOCK IN EARLIER YEA RS OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, THE LD.C IT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINING OF THE AO. THERE IS NOT DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO EXCESS STOCK WAS THAT THE S TOCK FOUND WAS BOARD WRAPPING PAPER, DESIGN PAPER PACK AND RUNNING ROLLS AND THE SAID STOCK WAS DEFECTIVE, WASTAGE, UNUSABLE, ETC. AND SUCH STO CK WAS ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS HAVING NO VALUE. TH IS EXPLANATION OF THE IT(SS)A NO.6/AH D/2012 HERITAGE BOARD PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. EVEN BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THUS, GROUND RAISE D IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON MONDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( . ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED / 11 /2015 6/..-, .-../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 789 : / CONCERNED CIT 4. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. ;< )-89 , / 893 , 7 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <= >. / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, *; ) //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD