The ITO, Ward-10(4),, Ahmedabad v. Shri Ramesh M.Parikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 3033/AHD/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 303320514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AENPP7205F
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3033/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-10(4),, Ahmedabad
Respondent Shri Ramesh M.Parikh, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 24-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 22-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 22-04-2015
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 02-12-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NO. 3033/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 I.T.O. WARD-10(4) AHMEDABAD VS. SHRI RAMESH M. PARIKH B-7 NAVRANG COMPLEX NR.SWASTIK CROSS ROAD NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD PAN: AENPP 7205 F / // / (APPELLANT) ! ! ! ! / // / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI ROOPCHAND SR. DR. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA AR '# $ %&'/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 22/04/2015 () $ %&' / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24/04/2015 *+ *+ *+ *+/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS )-XX AHMEDABAD DATED 09.09.2011 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REV ENUE READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18 35 000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT TREATING IT AS ADVANCES. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDI TION OF RS.18 35 000/- AS ITA NO. 3033/AHD/2011 ITO VS. SHRI RAMESH M. PARISKH FOR AY 2007-08 2 UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPEC T OF CREDIT OF FOLLOWING THREE PARTIES:- 1. SHAH METAL ALLOYS RS.500000/- 2. SUDARSHAN CORPORATION LTD RS.700000/- 3. SHYAM ENTERPRISE RS.635000/- 4. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF TH E CASE IN DETAIL FROM PAGES 2 TO 32 OF HIS ORDER AND THEREAFTER IN PARAG RAPH 4.6 HE RECORDED HIS FINDINGS POINTING THAT ALL THE THREE CREDITS WERE T RADE ADVANCES AGAINST THE SALE OF GOODS. THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER IN BULLION AND ALL THE THREE PARTIES HAD GIVEN THE ADVANCE BY CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE PURCHASE OF GOLD AND ULTIMATELY GOLD WAS SOLD TO ALL OF THEM I N THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR. SUCH SALES HAVE BEEN DULY DISCLOS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS RETURN OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CIT(A) ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ADDITION FOR THE CASH CREDIT WA S NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US HAS POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNI SHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN EVEN THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FU LLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT EITHER THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED OR THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONS IDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. ITA NO. 3033/AHD/2011 ITO VS. SHRI RAMESH M. PARISKH FOR AY 2007-08 3 6. IN REJOINDER IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUN SEL THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FORWARDED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CALLED FOR HIS REMAND REPORT. HE DECIDED THE APPEAL ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT B ORROWED ANY MONEY FROM ANY OF THE THREE PARTIES. IT WAS A TRADE TRANSACTIO N AGAINST THE SALE OF BULLIONS AND ULTIMATELY BULLIONS WERE SOLD TO ALL THE THREE PARTIES. THAT IT WAS THE ONE TIME TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN CON TACT WITH THESE THREE PARTIES; THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OBTAIN T HEIR CONFIRMATION. HOWEVER ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQUE A ND THE CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED AT DETAILS THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE BANKS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDE S AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). AT PAGE NO.34 IN PARAGRAPH 4.8 THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HE CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT AND ASSESSING OFFICERS OBJECTION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES; AND AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT F ACTS AND SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES HE OVERRULED THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF RULE 46A(4). HE HAS ALSO RECORDED THE FINDING THAT THE CREDIT IN TH E ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT FOR LOAN BUT ADVANCE AGAINST THE S ALE TRANSACTION. HIS RELEVANT FINDING AT PARAGRAPH 4.9 OF THE ORDER READ S AS UNDER:- 4.9 COMING TO THE MERITS THE FIRST POINT TO BE NOT ED IS THE ABOVE SUMS DO NOT REPRESENT LOANS OR BORROWINGS MADE BY THE APPELLANT INSTEAD THEY WERE ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST SALES EFFECTED IN THE SUC CEEDING YEAR. AS STATED IN THE PRECEDING PARA THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINE SS OF THE PARTIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS STAND ESTABLISHED . AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ITA NO. 3033/AHD/2011 ITO VS. SHRI RAMESH M. PARISKH FOR AY 2007-08 4 CONTROVERT THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE SALE S WERE AFFECTED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR VAT WAS PAID AND THE VAT RETURN WA S FILED. THE ABOVE FACTUAL FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) H AS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. THUS THE CR EDIT IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS A TRADE ADVANCE AND GOODS HAV E BEEN SOLD AGAINST THOSE ADVANCE. THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN DIS CLOSED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VAT HAS BEEN PAID THEREON. T HE CIT(A) ALSO RECORDED THE FINDING THAT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ESTAB LISHED. ON THESE FACTS IN OUR OPINION THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN D ELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI T. THUS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SUSTAINED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH APRIL 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 24/04/2015 BIJU T. PS *+ $ % -* % *+ $ % -* % *+ $ % -* % *+ $ % -* %/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % '. / CONCERNED CIT 4. '. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. 12 % / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. 23 4# / GUARD FILE . *+' *+' *+' *+' / BY ORDER TRUE COPY 5 55 5/ // / 6 6 6 6 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD