Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Bejo P Vergjese, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 12 December, 2013
ुं ई यायपीठ "बी" मब
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ुं ई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM)
सव ी बी.आर. म तल, या यक सद य एवं राजे , लेखा सद य के सम
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8325/Mum/2010
( नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08)
Income Tax Officer-24(1)(3), बनाम/ Bejo P Verghese
C-13, 5th fl.,Room No.501, Vs. Omega Electronics,
Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 217, Bombay Talkies Compound,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Shree Ram Marg,
Bandra (E), Malad(W),
Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AABPP6494N
अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Ganesh Bare
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : None
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 12.12.2013
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2013
आदे श / O R D E R
Per B.R.Mittal, JM:
The department has filed this appeal for assessment year 2007-08 against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) dated 3.9.2010.
2. Only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) has erred to delete the addition of Rs.28,11,536/- made by AO on account of unexplained sundry creditors, which were brought forward from the preceding assessment year.
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, we decided to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record and considering the submissions of the ld. DR.
4. During the course of hearing the ld. DR relied on the order of AO and submitted that the assessee did not furnish the details of the sundry creditors during the course of assessment proceedings and the AO could not verify the genuineness of the sundry creditors. However, the attention of the DR was drawn that the said creditors are brought forward from the preceding assessment years and how the said sundry I.T.A. No. 8325/Mum/2010 2 creditors considered as assessee's unexplained income in the assessment year under consideration. Ld. DR could not reply to the above query except relying on the order of AO. We also observe that the ld. CIT(A) has stated that the AO had worked out old sundry creditors and those had been added after considering the purchase during the year. We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the said amount can never be added as income of the assessee during the year under consideration, that was outstanding as on 1.4.2004 i.e. on the opening day of the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. We find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). We may also state that the ld. DR also could not point out as to what are additional evidences accepted by ld. CIT(A) which may be said to be in contravention of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as contended by department in the grounds of appeal.
5. In view of above, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) rejecting the ground of appeal taken by department.
6. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th December, 2013.
घोषणा खल ु े यायालय म दनांकः 12th December, 2013 को क गई ।
Sd sd
(राजे /RAJENDRA) (बी.आर. म तल/B.R.MITTAL)
लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
मब
ुं ई Mumbai:
व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. आयकर आयु त / CIT concerned
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ंु ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, True copy सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai