Shanti Medical Stores, Patan v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1,, Patan

ITA 4422/AHD/2007 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 442220514 RSA 2007
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 4422/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant Shanti Medical Stores, Patan
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-1,, Patan
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 22-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 22-07-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 14-12-2007
Judgment Text
- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL A M SHANTI MEDICAL STORES PROP. SEVANTILAL M. MODI 26-A KILACHAND SHOPING CENTER PATAN. VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1 PATAN. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI M. G. PATEL AR REVENUEBY:- SHRI R. K. DHANESTA DR O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEARS 2001- 02 TO 2003-04. CERTAIN COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED I N THESE APPEALS AND HENCE THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. ITA NO.4422/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMI TTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL THOUGH THE SAME WAS DU LY ADMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.6 64 754/- IN RESPECT OF OPENING STOCK. ITA NOS.4422 4424/AHD/2007 ASST. YEARS :2001-02 -2003-04 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.2 45 651/- IN RESPECT OF OPENING CAPITAL ACCOUNT . 4. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE A ND DELETE THE FOLLOWING :- (I) TO DELETE ADDITION OF RS.6 64 754/- IN RESPECT OF O PENING STOCK. (II) TO DELETE ADDITION OF RS.2 45 651/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ITA NO.4423/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2002-03 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING G ROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMI TTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL THOUGH THE SAME WAS DU LY ADMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.5 00 000/- IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT BY SHRI RA YCHANDBHAI PATEL. 3. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE A ND DELETE ADDITION OF RS.5 00 000/- IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSI T BY SHRI RAYCHANDBHAI PATEL. ITA NO.4424/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMI TTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL THOUGH THE SAME WAS DU LY ADMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT BY ARUNABE N S. MODI. 3 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-XXI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.3 00 000/- IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT BY HIMATLA L MODI. 4. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE A ND DELETE THE FOLLOWING :- (I) TO DELETE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- IN RESPECT OF C ASH DEPOSIT BY ARUNABEN S. MODI. (II) TO DELETE ADDITION OF RS.3 00 000/- IN RESPECT OF C ASH DEPOSIT BY HIMMATLAL MODI. ITA NO.4422/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2001-02 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF MEDICINES ON WHOLE SALE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE DECLARE D TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.22 99 996/- AND GROSS PROFIT AT RS.1 45 499/- GIVING GP RATE OF 6.33%. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON LY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 ON 13.9.2006 ON AN INCOME OF RS.41 0 00/-. NO RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT FILED ANY RETURN FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01. THE AO H AS NOTICED OPENING STOCK OF RS.6 64 754/- AND OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.2 45 651/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EVEN FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. AS NO EVIDENCE OF OPENING STOCK AND OPENING CASH BA LANCE WAS PRODUCED AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE THE ADD ITIONS. 3. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO PRODUCE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PROFITS AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT THEM BECA USE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY REASON FOR THE FOLLOWING :- A. WHY A.O. REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO H AVE BEEN ADMITTED. B. NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAS BEEN GIVEN WHICH PREVENTED THE APPELLANT FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO . 4 C. APPELLANT WAS NOT PREVENTED BY ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE AO ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEV ANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL D. WHETHER THE AO HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT TO ADDUC E EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) INFERRED THAT ASSESSEE IS LEAST INTE RESTED IN ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE HIM. HE STATED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO JUSTIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF OPENING CAPI TAL OR TO THE ASSERTION THAT RECORDS OF EARLIER YEARS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. AC CORDINGLY LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED BOTH THE ADDITIONS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AND THE LD. DR. THE CAS E OF LD. AR IS THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PREVIOUS BALANC E SHEET PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ETC. BEFORE THE AO BECAUSE HE WAS ILL AND H E WAS NOT REMEMBERING WHERE HE HAS KEPT THE RECORDS OF ASSESS MENT YEAR 2000-01. HE FILED A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF ONE DR.RENISH R. MEMTHANI DATED 22.1.2007 POINTING OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM DIABETES HYPERTENSION AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE. IT IS CLAI MED THAT HE IS UNDER MEDICAL TREATMENT. HOWEVER ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW WHY THIS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO OR FAILE D TO SHOW WHY THE MEDICAL PAPERS WERE NOT PUT UP BEFORE THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. THE LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ON THE GRO UND THAT IT IS NOT GENUINE AND AO HAS GOT NO OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE AN D VERIFY THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. 5. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTE RFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS OF ACCO UNT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND NO CONVINCING REASON IS ADVANCED TO SHOW THAT PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET WERE PREP ARED FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR ASST. Y EAR 2000-01 IT CANNOT 5 BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING EX PLANATION OF OPENING BALANCE WHICH HE FAILED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AS NO CONTRARY MATERIAL IS SHOWN ABOUT EXISTENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TH E BASIS OF WORKING OUT PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE FOR THE ASS T. YEAR 2000-01. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEAR 200 1-02 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.4423/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2002-03 6. THE FACTS REGARDING NON-ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ARE THE SAME AS IN ASST. YEAR 2001-02. FOR THE REASONS DISC USSED BY US WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2001-02 WE HOLD HERE THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING ANY EVIDENCE NOT PRO DUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE ONLY POINT FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MADE. IT IS POINTED OUT BY LD. AR THAT SU M OF RS. 5 LACS IS THE MONEY OUTSTANDING IN THE ACCOUNT OF RAYCHAND PATEL BUT OUT OF THIS SUM A SUM OF RS.3 01 000/- WAS RECEIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND ONLY A SUM OF RS.1 99 000/- ALONE HAS BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR. THEREFORE IF AT ALL ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IT WOULD BE OF RS.1 99 000/- ONLY. 7. AFTER HEARING THE LD. AR AND AFTER SATISFYING OU RSELVES WE BELIEVE THAT SUM OF RS.3 01 000/- PERTAINED TO ASST. YEAR 2 001-02 AND WAS NOT RECEIVED THIS YEAR. THE ONLY SUM RECEIVED THIS YEAR RS.1 99 000/- IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED AND ACC ORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT. THUS THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS.3 01 000/-. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.4424/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 8. IN THIS YEAR THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS A CREDIT OF R S. 2 LACS IN THE NAME OF ARUNABEN S. MODI AND RS.3 LACS IN THE OF HIMMAT LAL MODI. NO 6 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CREDITS WAS FILED. THE AO ME NTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT HE HAS ISSUED SEVERAL NOTICES BUT NO COMPLIANC E WAS MADE. NO CONFIRMATORY LETTERS FROM THE DEPOSITORS OR THEIR P OSTAL ADDRESSES OR ABOUT THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS WERE FURNISHED. SHRI HIMMATL AL MODI HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME THOUGH CLAIMED THAT HE HAS BRO UGHT THIS AMOUNT FROM B M PHARMA BUT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THE OTHER DEPOSITOR IS ARUNABEN S. MODI WHO IS WIFE OF ASSESSEE AND SERVING AS A PRIMARY TEACHER. NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FURN ISHED BY HER IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS DEPOS ITED RS. 2 LACS WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE IDEN TITY OR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION THE AO MADE THE ADDITION. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GRO UND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ATTENDING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AN D EVERY TIME ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO PROD UCE SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH LD. CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT FOR THE REASONS AS MENTIONED BY HIM IN THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH WE ALSO MENTION ED IN OUR ORDER FOR ASST. YEAR 2001-02. 10. BEFORE US IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE WAS THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ABOUT ILLNESS OF ASSESSEE SOME RECEIPTS OF MONEY OF RS. 1 LAC FROM SCHOOL BOARD ON 1.1.2002 A CERTIFIC ATE FROM PEOPLES CO- OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. SHOWING THAT A LOAN OF RS. 1 LAC WAS GIVEN TO HER COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF ARUNABEN ETC.; NO REASON AS TO WHY THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO WAS GIVE N. EVEN BEFORE US NO REASONS ARE ADVANCED AS TO WHY THESE EVIDENCES W ERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. IN ABSENCE OF REASONS FOR NOT PRODUC ING THESE DOCUMENTS 7 BEFORE THE AO WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FOR ASST. YEAR 2001-02 A ND ASST. YEAR 2003- 04 ARE DISMISSED AND APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2002-03 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/7/2010 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD DATED : 30/7/2010 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD