DCIT, New Delhi v. M/s Pooja International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5228/DEL/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 522820114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACP0565A
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5228/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s Pooja International Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 29-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 22-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 22-03-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 24-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5228/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE VS. M/S. POOJA INTERNATIONA L LTD. NEW DELHI. 7 SOUTH PATEL NAGAR NEW DELHI. (PAN : AAACP0565A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL ADVOCATE & SHRI SHAILESH GUPTA AR REVENUE BY : SMT. RENUKA JAIN GUPTA SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-XVII NEW DELHI DATED 22.09.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE R EAD AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.1 62 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING BALANCE OF A DVANCES RECOVERABLE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 46A. ITA NO.5228/DEL./2010 2 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR AMEN D ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURS E OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WA S COMPLETED ON 31.12.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED TO RECTIF Y THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE DETAILS FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE NORMAL SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSES SMENT THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2005 (SCHEDULE VI) THE C LOSING BALANCE OF ADVANCES RECOVERABLE WAS RS.10 04 60 942/-. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICERS VERSION THIS BALANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN BY TAKING THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.37 50 000/- FOR THE YEAR INSTEAD OF RS.1 99 50 0 00/- AS A CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2004. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 62 00 000/- WAS NOT DISCLOSED HENCE PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO INCOME. AN ORDER U/S 154/155 WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON 18.03.2009 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT THE HEARING WAS FIXED ON 26.03.2009. ASSESSEE HAS MADE NO COMPLIANCE ON THIS DATE AND TILL THE DA TE OF PASSING OF THE ORDER. IN ABSENCE OF ANY REPLY FROM THE ASSESSEE IT WAS P RESUMED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO SAY AND ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF RS.1 62 00 000/-. . 3. THE CIT (A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. THE LD. AR SUB MITTED THE DETAILS OF SQUARED UP ACCOUNTS CONFIRMATION OF ACC OUNTS FROM RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND DETAILS OF LOANS AND ADVANCE S RECOVERABLE AS ON 31.03.2005. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOW N OPENING BALANCE ITA NO.5228/DEL./2010 3 OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AS PER ANNEXURE-VI OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AT RS.1 99 50 000/- AND NOT AT RS.37 50 000/- TAKEN BY THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAS BIFURCATED THE OPENING BALANCE INTO T HREE CATEGORIES OF ACCOUNTS. FIRST CATEGORY CONSISTS OF SQUARED UP AC COUNTS IN WHICH OPENING BALANCE WAS RS.1 12 00 000/-. SECOND CATEG ORY CONSISTS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES RECOVERABLE IN WHICH TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE DURING THE YEAR. IN THIS CATEGORY OPENING BALANCE WAS RS.37 50 000/-. THE THIRD CATEGORY CONSIST OF THE ACCOUNT IN WHICH THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE OF RS.50 00 000/- AND WHICH WAS REPAID DURI NG THE YEAR. THUS THE TOTAL OF THREE COMES TO RS.1 99 50 000/-. THE SAME WAS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR TH AT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. THEREFORE THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HENCE THE SAME IS DELETED . 4. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF NORMAL SCRUTIN Y THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE DETAILS OF THE LOANS AND ADVANCES RECOVERABLE ALONG WITH CONFI RMATIONS WERE FILED WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK . THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2005 CLEARLY SHOWS THE OUTSTANDING LOANS AND ADVANCES RECOVERABLE AT RS.10 04 60 942.39 (REFERRED TO PAGE 5 OF PAPER BOO K) AND CLOSING BALANCE OF PREVIOUS YEAR WAS AT RS.1 99 50 000/-. THIS FACT I S ALSO EVIDENT FRO PAGE 8 OF PAPER BOOK IN SCHEDULE VI. PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER BO OK IS THE DETAILS OF ADVANCES RECOVERABLE AS ON 31.03.2005. IT ALSO CON TAIN THE DETAILS OF SQUARED UP ACCOUNTS. RS.37 50 000/- ON WHICH DRAW THE CONC LUSION (DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 37 & 38) WERE THE OPENING BALANC ES OF THE PERSONS WHOSE OUTSTANDING BALANCE ALSO FORM PART OF THE CLOSING B ALANCE OF RS.10 04 60 942/- AS ON 31.03.2005. THIS IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM PAGES 37 & 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK ITA NO.5228/DEL./2010 4 WHICH WERE DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THE DETAILS OF SQUARED UP ACCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 14 & 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WERE ALSO BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER PRIOR TO PROPOSE D RECTIFICATION. THE DETAILS OF RS.50 00 000/- WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO ASSE SSING OFFICER IN NORMAL SCRUTINY WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 13 ITSELF. THI S WAS THE AMOUNT OF THE DRAFT PROPOSED IN THE NAME OF SHRI JAGJIT SINGH SUR I FOR PROPOSED PURCHASE OF A FLAT AT PRITHVI RAJ ROAD NEW DELHI. THIS DEAL D ID NOT MATERIALIZE AND THE DRAFT WAS GOT CANCELLED ON 19.06.2004. THUS AS ON 31.03.2004 THIS AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS RECOVERABLE FROM JAGJIT SINGH SURI AS THE DRAFT WAS PREPARED IN HIS NAME. ALL THE DETAILS OF THE CLOSING BALANCE A S ON 31.03.2004 OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2004 AND CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2005 WERE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRIOR TO THE ISSUING NOTICE FOR RECTIFICATION. THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT F ROM THE RECORD. THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUES GROUND THAT AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A) IS ALSO UNJU STIFIED. ALL THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY TO CLARIFY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE QUERY FROM CIT (A) A NOTE ALON G WITH COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE FACT OF MAKING OF THE DRAFT AND THE CANCELLATION OF THE DRAFT WERE FILED. IT CANNOT B E TREATED AS FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS S UBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT ITA NO.5228/DEL./2010 5 (A). FOR THIS LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HO N'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEV MUSCO LIGHTING P. LTD. REPO RTED IN 316 ITR 209 (DELHI) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. AS P ER THE ORDER U/S 154/155 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ONE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. ON 26.03.2009. NON-COMPLIANCE ON THIS DATE M ADE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS AN ORDER IN ABSENCE OF ANY REPLY OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 18.09.2009. THUS FROM RECORDS IT APPEA RS THAT NO FURTHER DATE FOR HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BETWEEN THE PERIO D 26.03.2009 TILL THE ORDER PASSED ON 18.09.2009 WHICH IS A GAP OF SIX MONTHS. THE CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED THE RELIED ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS OF SQUARED UP AC COUNTS CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND DETAILS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES RECOVERABLE AS ON 31.03.2005 FILED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THIS FACT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE WHERE THE EVIDENCES AT PAGES 1 TO 45 WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ON THESE EVIDENCES THE CIT (A) WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO RECTIFY ANY MIST AKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD BUT THERE SHOULD BE A MISTAKE. ASSESSING OF FICER MAY MAKE AN AMENDMENT IN THE ORDER ON ITS OWN OMISSION OR THE M ISTAKE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER WHERE THE EFFECT OF AMENDMENT IS ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT OR REDUCING A REFUND OR OT HERWISE INCREASING THE ITA NO.5228/DEL./2010 6 LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE THEN IT SHALL NOT BE MADE UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVES NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS INTENTION TO D O SO. THE DETAILS HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NORMAL SCRUTINY WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE SAME. SUCCESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER FIN DS A MISTAKE BUT IN OUR VIEW THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. P AGES 5 8 13 TO 15 37 & 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD CLEARLY PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE LOANS AND ADVANCES RECOVERABLE AND E XPLAIN THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.1 99 50 000/-. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ONLY SE EN THE AMOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE OF THE ACCOUNTS IN WHICH LOAN AND ADVANCES WERE ALSO RECOVERABLE AS ON 31.03.2005. HAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPRECIAT ED THE DETAILS AVAILABLE AT OTHER PAGES PARTICULARLY PAGES 13 TO 15 THEN ISSUE COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED TO RECTIFY. FUR THER THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN RECORDS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE QUERY OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PAGES 48 TO 55 OF THE PAPE R BOOK FILED BEFORE CIT (A) WERE TO CLARIFY THE ADVANCES RECOVERABLE FROM S HRI JAGJIT SINGH SURI AMOUNTING TO RS.50 00 000/-. THE DETAILS WERE ALR EADY AVAILABLE AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE FURT HER DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY MADE BY THE CIT (A) WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 48 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A FORWARDING NOTE TO THE SE DETAILS. HON'BLE DELHI ITA NO.5228/DEL./2010 7 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEV MUSCO LIGHTIN G P. LTD. CITED SUPRA HAS HELD THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED ON DIREC TION OF THE CIT (A) TO CLARIFY THE STAND IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO OBTAIN TH E ASSESSING OFFICERS RESPONSE. THEREFORE THESE DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM O F COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WERE TO CLARIFY T HE TRANSACTION WITH JAGJIT SINGH SURI AND NOT TO BE TREATED AS ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ALL THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE S APPEAL STAND DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF MARCH 2012. SD/- SD/- (U.B.S. BEDI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 29 TH DAY OF MARCH 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XVII NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI AR ITAT NEW DELHI.