Shri Sakil B.Belim, Vapi v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3,, Vapi

ITA 1790/AHD/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 179020514 RSA 2010
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1790/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant Shri Sakil B.Belim, Vapi
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-3,, Vapi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 09-09-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 09-09-2010
Next Hearing Date 09-09-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 26-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH SMC AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1790/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 DATE OF HEARING:9.9.10 DRAFTED:14.9.1 0 SAKIL A BELIM PROP. A.B. CONSTRUCTION PLOT NO.11 IMRANNAGAR SILVASSA ROAD VAPI PAN NO.AFMPB1267K V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 VAPI (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- NONE RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI S.K. JHA SR-DR O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VALSAD IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)VLS /395/07-08 DATED 22- 12-2009. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-3 V API U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 18-12-2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF FOLLOWING EXPENSE S:- TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 26 237/- VEHICLE EXPENSES RS. 65 710/- DEPN. ON CAR RS. 58 461/- RS.1 50 408/- @ 10% = RS.15 040/- THE CIT(A) HOWEVER DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPR ECIATION OF RS.5 846/- AND SUSTAINED THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9 194/ -. 3. HAVING HEARD THE LD. SR-DR AND PERUSING THE MATE RIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I FIND THAT THE CIT(A) H AS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL ITA NO1790/AHD/2010 A.Y.2005-06 SAKIL B BELIM V. ITO WD-3 VAPI . PAGE 2 FINDING THAT THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USER OF TELEPH ONE AND VEHICLE CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND ACCORDINGLY HE DELETED 1/10 TH AND CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. I FIND NO REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY SAME IS UPHELD. 4. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 35 275/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN TWO CREDITORS BALANCES. FOR THIS ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2 :- 2. LR. A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO ADD B ALANCE DIFFERENCE OF TWO CREDITORS OF RS.2 35 275/- [RS.1 42 875 + 92 40 0 =2 35 275/-] LR. CIT (APPLS.) HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.2 35 275/-. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENC ES IN THE ACCOUNT OF JALARAM STEEL SUPPLIERS AND IN THE CREDIT BALANCE OF BHARAT STEEL SUPPLIERS COMPARED WITH CONFIRMATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ABOVE TWO PARTI ES AND DIFFERENCE WORKED BY AO IS OF RS.1 42 875/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF JALARAM STEEL SUPPLIERS AND RS.92 400/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF BHARAT STEEL SUPPLIER S. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED NET PROFIT OF RS.1 93 645/- WHICH MEANS THAT HE HAS ACCEPTED PURCHASES AND STOCK POSITION. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY HIM THAT ASSESSEE HAS UNACCOUNTED CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE AO HAS GAVE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING RE CONCILIATION OF THE CREDIT BALANCE OF THREE PARTIES NAMELY M/S. JALARAM STEEL SUPPLIERS M/S. BHARAT STEEL SUPPLIERS AND M/S. KASAM REHMAN BUT LD . COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF M/S. KASAM REH AMAN WHICH IS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER BY THE CIT(A). FOR THE BALANCE TWO CONF IRMATIONS THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDINGS IN PAGE-4 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER:- BEFORE ME ALSO THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE D ID NOT SUBMIT ANY RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF THOSE TWO PARTIES NAMEL Y M/S. JALARAM STEEL SUPPLIERS M/S. BHARAT STEEL SUPPLIERS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT WHERE THE CR EDIT BALANCES OF THE ABOVE REFERRED TWO PARTIES ARE SAME AS SUBMITTED BE FORE THE AO. THE POINTS HERE TO BE DECIDED IS THAT WHETHER THE CREDI T BALANCE SHOWN BY ITA NO1790/AHD/2010 A.Y.2005-06 SAKIL B BELIM V. ITO WD-3 VAPI . PAGE 3 THE APPELLANT IS IN ORDER AFTER THE AO CROSS VERIFI ED FROM THOSE PARTIES AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE FACT OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR I AM IN CLINED TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON T WO JUDGMENTS WHICH IN MY OPINION ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. 6. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE CREDIT BALANCES OF M/S. BHARAT STEEL SUPPLIERS AND M/S. JALARAM STEEL SUPPL IERS DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE CIT(A). I FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CROSS-VE RIFIED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THESE TWO PARTIES AND NOTED THAT THERE I S DIFFERENCE IN THE CREDIT BALANCES WHICH IS UNEXPLAINED DESPITE OPPORTUNITIE S GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION AND MOREOVER THE AO HAS CROSS-VERIFIED THE CREDIT BALANCES WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE TWO PARTIES ACCOUNTS THE ADDITION MADE AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) NEEDS CONFIRMATIONS. ACCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09/09/2010 SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD DATED : 09/09/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-VALSAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD