The ITO, Ward-9(4),, Surat v. M/s. Trupti Gems, Surat

ITA 119/AHD/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11920514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AABFT4468Q
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 119/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-9(4),, Surat
Respondent M/s. Trupti Gems, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 11-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 03-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 03-04-2014
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 19-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BENCH AHMEDABAD .. ! ! ! ! ' #$ BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.119/AHD/2011 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THE ITO WARD-9(4) SURAT / VS. M/S.TRUPTI GEMS PROP: JAYATIBHAI TALAVIA RANG AVDHOOT SOCIETY MATAWADI L.H. ROAD SURAT ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABFT 4468 Q ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID SR.DR -(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : -NONE- ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 03/04/2014 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/04/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-V SURAT (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 26.10.2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2007-08. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - [1] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 50 000/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S.68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOAN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO P ROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOAN. ITA NO.119/AHD/ 2011 ITO VS. M/S.TRUPTI GEMS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - [2} PM THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOAN AFTER ADMITTI NG NEW EVIDENCES IN CONTRAVENTION TO RULE 46A WITHOUT CALL ING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. [3] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AD IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3 69 964/- MADE BY THE A.O. AFTER DISALLOWING 10% OF KARIGAN MAJURI EXPENSES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION MADE WA S BASED ON DEFECTS FOUND IN THE LABOUR REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY IT COULD NOT BE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT TH ESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS P URPOSE. [4] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 69 964/- MADE BY THE A.O. AFTER DISALLOWING 10% OF KARIGAN MAJURI EX PENSES DESPITE THE FACT THAT DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHANDRAVILAS HOTEL (1987) 164 ITR 102 (GUJ.) (W HEREIN IT IS HELD THAT MERE PRODUCTION OF VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITURE WOULD IT ITSELF NOT PROVE THE CL AIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. [5] IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER DATED 29/12/2009 BE RESTORED. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14/02/2014. ON THE DATE SO FIXED NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL ON 14/02/2014 OBSERVED THAT DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO DIRECT THE REVENUE TO SERVE NOTICE. IN PURSUANCE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DIRECTION A LETTER DATED 27/03/2014 ADDRESSED TO THE DY.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD FROM THE ITO WARD-9(4 ) SURAT IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF THE LETTER ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ITA NO.119/AHD/ 2011 ITO VS. M/S.TRUPTI GEMS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - 2. AS DIRECTED THE NOTICE FOR HEARING IN THE ABO VE MENTIONED CASE RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SR.A.R. ITAT C BENCH AHMEDABAD RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE ON 10.03.2014 IS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 27.03.2014 AT ADDRESS GIVEN BE LOW. AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AVAILABLE AT LAST KNOW ADDRESS MENT IONED IN OFFICE. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT REGARDING NOTICE SER VED (SERVED ORIGINAL NOTICE ENCLOSED). CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS : TRUPTI GEMS PROP : JAYANTIBHAI TALAVIA RANG AVDHOOT SOCIETY MATAWADI L.H.ROAD SURAT 2.1. SINCE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NO ONE APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE LETTER DATED 27/03/2014 OF THE ITO WARD-9(4) SURAT THIS APPEAL IS HEARD EX-PARTE . 3. ONE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING THE NEW EVIDENCES IN C ONTRAVENTION TO RULE 46A WITHOUT CALLING FROM A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A O. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE EVIDENCES WITHOUT CALLIN G FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT DESPITE HAVING GIVEN VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA-5 OF HIS ORDER HAS OBSER VED AS UNDER:- 5 THE APPELLANT HAD ON ITS OWN AGAIN APPROAC HED MR.HARSHAD SHAH AND HAD RECEIVED THE PAPERS IN THE EVENING ON 29-12-2009 AND THEREFORE THE AR OF THE APPELLANT FI RM HAD ITA NO.119/AHD/ 2011 ITO VS. M/S.TRUPTI GEMS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - APPROACHED THE AO ON 31-12-2009 ALONGWITH THE SAID DETAILS OF MR.HARSHAD SHAH BUT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THESE PA PERS AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE SAME ON DISPA TCH COUNTER. A COPY OF THE SAID LETTER WAS PRODUCED BEFORE ME. THE ARS FURTHER PRODUCED THE BALANCE SHEET OF MR.HARSHAD SHAH TO PR OVE THE FACT THAT THE SAID LOAN OF RS.5 50 000/- GIVEN TO THE AP PELLANT FIRM WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF MR.HARSHAD SH AH AND THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE BY CHEQUES AND THAT THE DEPOSITOR HAD SUFFICIENT CAPITAL FUND TO ADVANCE MONEY TO THE APP ELLANT. 4.1. ADMITTEDLY IN THIS CASE NO REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN CALLED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FROM THE AO. UNDER THESE FACTS ADMISSIO N OF THE NEW EVIDENCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED WITHOUT CALLING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THEREFORE WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM TO DECIDE IT AFRES H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL CALL FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 5. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED BUT F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11/04/2014 71.. .../ T.C. NAIR SR. PS ITA NO.119/AHD/ 2011 ITO VS. M/S.TRUPTI GEMS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - 4 / $8 98'$ 4 / $8 98'$ 4 / $8 98'$ 4 / $8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. -(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-V AHMEDABAD 5. 8 #; $ / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER -8$ $ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 04.04.14 (DICTATION-PAD 6- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 7.4.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.11.4.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.4.14 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER