Jindal Worldwide Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 791/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9083 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROLEE AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY RANJAN
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ %& %& %& %& , , , , &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND TEJ RAM MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO.791/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEARS : 2007-2008] JINDAL WORLDWIDE LTD. 1ST FLOOR, SURYARATH, 1 ST LANE PANCHVATI, AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAACJ 3016 G /VS. DCIT, CENT.CIR.2(1) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) .% / 0 &/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY RANJAN ( / 0 &/ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROLEE AGARWAL, CIT-DR 2 / %3'/ DATE OF HEARING : 2 ND APRIL, 2013. 456 / %3'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-05-2013 &7 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 2. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS A S UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKHS BY UNREA SONABLY REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE RELEVANT AMOUNTS STOO D DULY INCORPORATED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKHS WAS WRONGLY MADE, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS HA VING A RUNNING IT(SS)A NO.791/AHD/2010 -2 ACCOUNT OF M/S.NEW FASHION INTERNATIONAL INC. (NFI I FOR SHORT), AND ALL THE ENTRIES AS FOUND IN THE SEIZED PAPER WERE ACCOU NTED FOR IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS NFII. HE REFERR ED TO THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SHRI JITENDRA T. AGRAWAL AND COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI JITENDRA T. AGRAWAL IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ALSO C OPY OF CONFIRMATION OF CASH RECEIVED BY NFII FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE FROM 1 ST AUGUST, 2006 TO 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 FILED IN THE COMPILATION AT PAGE N O.4 TO 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. 4. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. SHE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT POR TIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT NECESSARY ENTRIES WERE PASSED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MADE AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. SHE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF TH E AO AND THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A), AND ALSO COPIES OF VARIOUS DOCUM ENTS FILED IN THE COMPILATION BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH, A LETTER DATED 7.9.2006 OF NFII ADDRESSED TO THE AS SESSEE FIRM MENTIONING VARIOUS AMOUNTS ON DIFFERENT DATES HAVING RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM TOTALING TO RS.7 LAKHS, WAS FOUND AND SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSEE AND HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY NFII. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF ITS CASH BOOK FROM 1 ST AUGUST, 2006 TO 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 IN THE COMPILATION FILED BEFORE US , WHEREIN, DIFFERENT ENTRIES OF IMPREST ACCOUNTS OF S HRI JITENDRA T. AGRAWAL WERE DULY RECORDED. SHRI JITENDRA T. AGRAWAL HAS C ONFIRMED THE SAID ENTRIES AND NFII HAS CONFIRMED THE CASH ENTRIES R ECEIVED BY IT. COPY OF IT(SS)A NO.791/AHD/2010 -3 THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE FROM 1 ST AUGUST, 2006 TO 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 FILED IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE US SHOWS THAT THE NECESSARY ENTRIES HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESS EE. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ENTRI ES, AS FOUND IN THE SEIZED PAPER BELONGING TO NFII, DID NOT FIND PLACE IN TH E ACCOUNT BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS WERE MADE AFTER THE DATE OF SE ARCH, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL O N RECORD TO SUGGEST SUCH A POSSIBILITY. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE AD DITION CANNOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AND IN THE ABSENCE ANY CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT NO CASE FOR ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKHS COULD BE MADE OUT BY THE REV ENUE, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED. 6. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE REALISED THAT IT WAS NOT AT ALL A FIT CASE FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A, AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A WAS BAD IN L AW. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRE SSED THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %& %& %& %& / TEJ RAM MEENA) &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A)