Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
M/S On Time Crriers, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Jaipur on 4 September, 2018
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 344/JP/2018
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10
M/s On Time Carriers cuke ITO,
62, Burmese Colony, Vs. Ward-5(3),
Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAF01853B
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/08/2018
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 04/09/2018
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 22.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2009-10 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
"1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 73,105/- on the basis of entry in Form No. 26AS by not accepting the contention of assessee that it has not received any interest income from Sh. Deepak Agarwal nor any evidence was brought on record that assessee has advanced any amount to him. He has further erred in not directing to allow the TDS credit of Rs. 7,530/-. 1.1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in observing that AO has recorded that assessee in assessment proceedings has admitted ITA No. 344/JP/2018 M/s On Time Carriers, Jaipur Vs ITO, Jaipur that this income was omitted to be included in the return of income unintentionally whereas there is no such admission by the assessee."
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on perusal of Form No. 26AS noticed that the assessee has received interest of Rs. 73,105/- from Shri Deepak Agarwal and which has not been offered to tax in the return of income. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee and in response, the assessee denied any transaction with Deepak Agarwal, however, the AO didn't accept the same and the interest income of Rs. 73,105/- was brought to tax in hands of the assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again denied any transaction with Mr. Deepak Agarwal and also filed an affidavit to this effect. The ld. CIT(A) however did not find the same acceptable and the addition so made by the AO was sustained.
3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had advanced a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to M/s Sonia Creation in year 2006 and whose proprietor is Mr Deepak Agarwal. It was accordingly submitted that inadvertently, this fact has escaped the attention of the assessee during the course of proceedings before the lower authorities and as a result, the assessee has denied any transaction with Mr Deepak Agarwal. However, on review of the documentation and the books of accounts while preparing for the impunged appeal, it was found that the assessee has in fact entered into a transaction with M/s Sonia Creation. It was accordingly submitted by the ld. AR that there is no dispute that the assessee has entered into a transaction with M/s Sonia Creation whose proprietor is Mr Deepak Agarwal wherein the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was advanced in the year 2006. It was further submitted that for the year ended 31st March, 2008, in the books of accounts, the assessee has accounted for the accrued interest on such advance to the tune of Rs. 59,202/- and in the year ended 31st March, 2010, the said accrued 2 ITA No. 344/JP/2018 M/s On Time Carriers, Jaipur Vs ITO, Jaipur interest has been written off in the books of accounts as the same was not recoverable. It was further submitted that the assessee has neither accrued nor received any interest for the FY ended 31st March, 2009 and the entry in Form No. 26AS cannot be made the basis for making the additions in the hand of the assessee. It was further submitted that since there was no possibility of recovery of interest amount for the year ended March, 2008, a fact which is evident by subsequent writing off of the same in the FY ended March 31, 2010, the assessee has not accounted for the interest for the impugned year ie, FY ended March 31, 2009 and even if, the same was accounted for in the books of accounts, the assessee would have written off the same along with interest for FY ended March 31,2008 in the subsequent FY ended March 31, 2010. It was accordingly submitted by the ld AR that the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.
4. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. DR that the assessee has denied having any transaction with Mr Deepak Agarwal before the lower authorities and now has come up before the Bench stating the assessee has in fact entered into a loan transaction way back in the year 2006 with M/s Sonia Creation and whose proprietor is Shri Deepak Agarwal. Further, the ld DR submitted that nothing has been brought on record in terms of non- recovery of the interest income in terms of any dispute between the parties and it was accordingly submitted that the order of the lower authorities be confirmed.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Though before the lower authorities, the assessee has denied having any transaction with Shri Deepak Agarwal, however based on material produced before us, it is clear that assessee has in fact entered into a loan transaction with M/s Sonia Creation whose proprietor is Shri Deepak Agarwal. Therefore, as far as the existence of transaction is concerned, the same is no 3 ITA No. 344/JP/2018 M/s On Time Carriers, Jaipur Vs ITO, Jaipur more in dispute and the assessee has accepted the same. However, as far as the existence of any dispute between the parties and non-receipt of the interest income is concerned and whether it can be said that interest income has not accrued to the assessee for the impunged assessment year, the matter requires examination and we hereby set aside the same to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the same afresh and decide as per law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/09/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Jaipur
Dated:- 04/09/2018
*Ganesh Kr
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf"kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s On Time Carriers, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- ITO, Ward-5(3), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@Guard File (ITA No. 344/JP/2018) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar.4