Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Creative Instruments & Controls, New ... vs Ito Ward - 53(3), New Delhi on 8 February, 2021
1 ITA No.1631/Del/2020
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: 'B' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 1631/DEL/2020 ( A.Y 2012-13)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
Creative Instruments & Vs ITO
Controls Ward-53(3)
35, ARD Complex, R. K. New Delhi
Puram, New Delhi-110061
AAFFC5941B
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv
Respondent by Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 08.02.2021
Date of Pronouncement 08.02.2021
ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31/03/2015 passed by CIT(A)- Delhi-36 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
"1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition made of Rs. 1,09,46,3757/- on account of unsecured loans and held to be alleged unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act.
1.1 That while upholding the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no fresh loans raised by the appellant 2 ITA No.1631/Del/2020 in the instant year and therefore the sum outstanding at the close of the year on account of purchases made by the appellant could neither in law and nor on fact be regarded as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act.
1.2 That in any case once the purchases have been accepted as genuine purchases corresponding credit cannot b validly added as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act.
1.3. That further more sum of Rs. 16,37,000/- represented opening balances therefore the same cannot even otherwise be taxed u/s 68 of the Act.
1.4 That the finding that "the additional evidence filed by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings had nothing to do with return of income filed by the appellant and, the remand report of the AO is vehemently clear that last minute ledger entries have been made to justify claims" is factually l incorrect, legally misconceived and wholly untenable.
1.5 That even the conclusion that "Argument taken up by the appellant for non submission of details in front of the AO are vey routine, general and devoid of merit; and the appellant has not furnished any evidence in support of its argument" is contrary to material on record and thus unsustainable.
2. That furthermore the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the appellant under rule 46A read with section 250(4) of the Act.
2.1 That the finding that "none of the conditions mentioned in rule 46A(l)(a) to (l)(d) are satisfied in the case of the appellant" are based on surmises, conjecture and suspicion and thus untenable.
3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred 3 ITA No.1631/Del/2020 both in law and on facts in upholding a disallowance of sum of Rs. 7,38,112/- under the head 'other current liabilities' by invoking section 43B of the Act.
3.1 That the condition that since "all the payments have been made by the assessee after filing date of lTR for the AY 2012-13 i.e. 30.9.2012 and liable to be disallowed as per section 43B of the Act" is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and wholly untenable.
4. That both the authorities below have framed the impugned order without granting sufficient proper opportunity to the appellant and therefore the same are contrary to principles of natural justice and hence vitiated.
It is therefore, prayed that, it be held that addition and disallowance made and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed."
3. The assessment in this case was made u/s. 143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 vide order dated 21/03/2015 and the income was assessed at Rs. 1,26,78,300/- against the returned income 6,73,063/- making the following additions:-
i. Addition of Rs. 6,360/- on account of telephone expenses. ii. Addition of Rs. 73,812/- on account of vehicle repair & maintenance.
iii. Addition of Rs. 22,423/- on account of different expenses. iv. Addition of Rs. 61,353/- on account of expenses of disallowable nature. v. Addition of Rs. 1,09,46,375/- on account of Unsecured loans. vi. Addition of Rs. 7,38,112/- on account of liabilities payable.
vii. Addition of Rs. 30,000/- on account of commission income. viii. Addition of Rs. 1,26,800/- on account of undeclared 4 ITA No.1631/Del/2020
3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
4. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46 A read with Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT (A) for admitting the additional evidence to decide the appeal on merit.
5. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT (A) without assigning any particular reasons has rejected the additional evidence which goes to the root of the matter. We therefore, direct the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and to decide the issue afresh after taking cognizance of the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
7. In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 08th Day of February, 2021 in presence of both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 08/02/2021
R. Naheed
5 ITA No.1631/Del/2020
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI