SMT ARCHANA BANSAL, RAIPUR (CG) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2), RAIPUR (CG)

MA 4/BIL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4864 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायप ु र मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 04/RPR/2016 (Arising out of ITA No. 64/BLPR/2012 ) Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Archana Bansal Prop. Of M/s. Rishi Enterprises, Shop No.24, Kamala Super Market, Telghani Naka, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) PAN : AKHPB7755Q ...........आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, AR Revenue by : Shri G. N Singh, DR स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 01.04.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 2 Smt. Archana Bansal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2) MA No. 04/RPR/2016 आदेश/ ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee arises from the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the Revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.64/BLPR/2012, dated 30.10.2015. 2. Succinctly stated, the Assessing Officer while assessing the income of the assessee vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 08.11.2011 had, inter alia, made an addition u/s 68 of the Act qua seven sundry creditors aggregating to Rs. 37,66, 125/- and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.41,33,690/-. 3. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) finding favor with the claim of the assessee as regards the authenticity of the trade creditors in question had deleted the impugned addition of Rs.37,66,125/- (supra) that was made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue carried the matter before the Tribunal. Observing, that the assessee had failed to substantiate the genuineness of the trade creditors 3 Smt. Archana Bansal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2) MA No. 04/RPR/2016 in question, the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No.64/BLPR/2012, dated 30.10.2015 restored the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, as under: “6. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that in such a situation when the admitted factual position was that compliance from the side of the assessee was not made properly before the AO, although notice u/s.133(6) was issued and that the confirmations alongwith genuineness of the transaction was placed before the Id CIT(A) for the first time, therefore, the natural justice demands to refer this issue back to the stage of the AO so that the correctness of the accounts can be verified. Before we part with, it is worth to mention that accepted factual position was that it is not a case of cash creditors but a case of trade creditors, hence, the AO should consider this aspect carefully, especially when the purchases made from the said seven parties have not been doubted during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO is, therefore, directed to confine his investigation only in respect of business transaction made by the assessee with these seven parties. With these directions, we hereby restore the issue back to the file of the AO to decide denovo as per above direction, needless to say after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since the ground is restored back for fresh adjudication, hence, may be treated as allowed only but for statistical purposes.” 5. Before us, the assessee applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of a mistake emanating from the order of the Tribunal. Elaborating on the aforesaid claim of the assessee, it was submitted by the ld. Authorised Representative (“AR”, for short) for the assessee, that the Tribunal while restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, had wrongly observed that the assessee had filed confirmations of the trade creditors before the CIT(Appeals) for the first time. Rebutting the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal, it was submitted by the ld. AR, that in the course of 4 Smt. Archana Bansal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2) MA No. 04/RPR/2016 hearing of the appeal the assessee respondent had specifically brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the confirmations of the trade creditors were filed in the course of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the Tribunal had duly taken cognizance of the aforesaid claim of the assessee, but thereafter, it had wrongly observed that the said confirmations were filed for the first time in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals). In order to buttress his aforesaid claim the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to Page 2 - Para 2 of the impugned order, wherein, the Tribunal while referring to the facts of the case, had categorically observed, that the assessee in compliance to the directions of the Assessing Officer had during the course of the assessment proceeding filed copies of the account of the trade creditors a/w. their complete address, PAN etc. In order to dispel any doubt as regards the aforesaid factual position, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the order of the CIT(Appeals), wherein, he had at Page 2 of his order categorically observed that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, in compliance to the directions of the Assessing Officer had filed copies of the accounts of the seven trade creditors a/w. their complete address, PAN etc. Backed by aforesaid facts, it was claimed by the Ld. AR that as the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in ITA No.64/BLPR/2012, dated 30.10.2015 had wrongly observed that confirmations of the trade creditors 5 Smt. Archana Bansal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2) MA No. 04/RPR/2016 were filed for the first time before the CIT(Appeals) therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal to the said extent suffered from a mistake that had rendered the same amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Act. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the application filed by the assessee and the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.64/BLPR/2012, dated 30.10.2015. As is discernible from the order of the CIT(Appeals), it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assesee in the course of the assessment proceedings had complied with the directions of the Assessing Officer and furnished copies of the accounts of the seven trade creditors in question a/w. their complete address, PAN etc. The relevant observations of the CIT(Appeals) supporting the aforesaid claim of the assessee can safely be gathered from his order (Page 4), which reads as under: “...........From the facts of the case, it is emerged that during the assessment proceedings the appellant was required to file the copies of accounts along with complete postal addresses of the following sundry trade creditors : 1.Shree Ganesh Traders, Ramsagar Para, Raipur 2. Om Sainath Traders, New Kalinga Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur 6 Smt. Archana Bansal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2) MA No. 04/RPR/2016 3. Om Bajrang Traders, Telghani Naka Raipur 4. Maa Sharda Traders, Telghani Naka Raipur 5. Shital Trading Company, Kota Road, Kota Raipur 6. Manoj Sales Corporation, Post Funda, District Durg 7. Mahamaya Trading Company, Post Amleshwar, District Durg It is seen that the appellant has duly filed the copies of accounts of the above named sundry creditors duly confirmed by the parties. Photocopies of the same are placed on record.......” (emphasis supplied by us) 8. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we find that while referring to the facts therein involved, it was observed by the Tribunal that the assessee in compliance to the directions of the Assessing Officer had furnished copies of accounts of seven trade creditors aggregating to Rs.37,66,125/- a/w. their complete addresses, PAN etc. After having so observed, the Tribunal had, thereafter, stated that the confirmations a/w. genuineness of the transactions qua the trade creditors were placed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) for the first time. Admittedly, the fact as regards furnishing of the aforesaid confirmations in the course of the assessment proceedings is though not discernible from the assessment order, but then it remains as a matter of fact borne from records that the CIT(Appeals) while disposing off the assessee’s appeal had categorically observed that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings had filed the copies of accounts, 7 Smt. Archana Bansal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2) MA No. 04/RPR/2016 confirmations of trade creditors which were duly confirmed by the said parties. Apart from that, the Tribunal while referring to the facts of the case had also duly appreciated the aforesaid factual position. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the Tribunal while disposing off the Revenue’s appeal had inadvertently observed that confirmations of the seven trade creditors were filed by the assessee for the first time before the CIT(Appeals). As the aforesaid mistake is glaring, patent, apparent and obvious from record, therefore, the order of the Tribunal to the said extent is herein rectified. Accordingly, the observations of the Tribunal that confirmations of the trade creditors in question were placed before the CIT(Appeals) for the first time are being expunged from the impugned order passed by it while disposing off the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.64/BLPR/2012, dated 30.10.2015. 10. Before parting, we may herein observe, that by this order we have only rectified a mistake which is apparent from the record and the same shall, in no way, have any bearing on the view taken by the Tribunal while disposing off the Revenue’s appeal in question i.e. ITA No.64/ BLPR/2012 dated 30.10.2015. 8 Smt. Archana Bansal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2) MA No. 04/RPR/2016 11. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee/appellant is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 05 th day of April, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- JAMLAPPA D BATTULL RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायप ु र/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 05 th April, 2022 **SB आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals), Raipur (C.G) 4. The CIT, Raipur (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,रायप ु र बɅच, रायप ु र / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशान ु सार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Ǔनजी सͬचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायप ु र / ITAT, Raipur. 9 Smt. Archana Bansal Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2) MA No. 04/RPR/2016 Date 1 Draft dictated on 01.04.2022 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 01.04.2022 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order