Shri Manojkumar S Pacheriwala, Surat v. The Income Tax Officer, Surat

ITA 945/AHD/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 94520514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ABJPP3803E
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 945/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant Shri Manojkumar S Pacheriwala, Surat
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 21-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 23-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 23-11-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 30-03-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD D BENCH ! ! ! ! . .. .# ## # . .. .$%& $%& $%& $%& #' #' #' #' # ( # ( # ( # ( BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A. K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.945/AHD/2009 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2005-2006] SHRI MANOJKUMAR S. PACHERIWALA PROP. OF GINI INTERNATIONAL 501 ANMOL TEXTILE MARKET RING ROAD SURAT. PAN : ABJPP 3803 E. /VS. ITO WARD-2(3) SURAT. ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( ( -*+ -*+ -*+ -*+ / RESPONDENT) . / 0 #/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.N. VEPARI 2 / 0 #/ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.R. PATHAK 3 / '/ DATE OF HEARING : 23 RD NOVEMBER 2011 4%5 / '/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 ST DECEMBER 2011 #6 / O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A)-II SURAT DATED 31.12.2008 FOR A.Y.2005-2006. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THE APPEAL. (I) REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN CONFIRMING REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT PARTICULARLY WH EN THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS O F THE TRANSACTION. (2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF LOSS DUE TO FLOODS. (3) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE BOOK RESULT HA S BEEN WRONGLY REJECTED THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED. (II) DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES - RS.6 72 63 980/- ITA NO.945/AHD/2009 -2- (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES. (1) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFI CATION WHATSOEVER FOR CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES WHEN PURCHASE/SALES WERE OF EXACT QUANTITIES PAYMENTS M ADE BY CHEQUES AND COMPLETE DETAILS FRONT CENTRAL EXCISE D GFT & CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES CORROBORATED EXPORTS. (2) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DISREGARDED THE EVIDENCE MENT IONED INCORRECT ANAL IRRELEVANT FACTS. (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAVING HELD BOTH PURCHASES AND EXPORTS AS BOGUS NO ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED IN ANY CASE. (4) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH VARIOUS JUDGME NTS INCLUDING THAT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. (III) UNSECURED LOANS:- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIR MING ADDITION OF RS.15 00 000/-( OUT OF RS.20 00 000) U/ S. 68 IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS INTRODUCED BY SIX PARTIES WHEN CONFIRMAT IONS AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND THAT THEY WERE ALL ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEI VED RECEIVED/REPAID BY CHEQUES AND LENDERS HAVE SHOWN I N BALANCE SHEETS WHEREVER THEY WERE OUTSTANDING. (IV) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.2 57 633/- BEING 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES WHEN THE ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED WITH THE APPELLANT C OULD NOT PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE BOOKS AND VO UCHERS WERE DESTROYED IN FLOODS. (V) MISCELLANEOUS:- (I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED INTEREST U/S.234B OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING ITA NO.945/AHD/2009 -3- ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN A PPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1963 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES. IN THE SAID APPLICATION IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE THE AO HAS DOUBTED THE PURCHASES THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOUBTED THE SALES AS WELL AS THEIR R EALISATION. BUT IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HE HAD NOT SO INDICATED A ND ONLY IN HIS ORDER HE HAS BROUGHT THIS ISSUE AND FOR THIS REASON THE ASSESSE E WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE COPIES OF SALES INVOICES/SHIPPING BILLS COUNTERSIGN ED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE SATISFIED THAT IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE INVOLVED ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NECESSARY AND HENCE WE ADMIT THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES. WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A O FOR FRESH DECISION IN LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOW SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE AND HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE DECISION THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON AT THIS STAGE AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION IN THIS REGARD. 6. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT (JUDICIAL MEMBER) A.K. GARODIA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)