Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

Waltask Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 29 February, 2016

           IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
            DELHI BENCH 'Meerut Camp', NEW DELHI

               Before Shri I.C.Sudhir, Judicial Member
            And Shri Prashant Maharishi , Accountant Member

                      ITA No. 263/Del./2015
                       Assessment Year : 2007-08

            Waltask Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs.        ACIT
            C-5,                                         Circle-2
            Pandab Nagar                                 Meerut
            Meerut
            PAN : AAACW7282P

                  Assessee by : Shri R.K.Garg, Adv.
                  Revenue by : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 17/12/2015
Date of pronouncement : 29 .02.2016
                               ORDER

PER I.C.Sudhir, J.M.

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of CIT(A)- Meerut dated 28.11.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.

2. In the grounds raised, the assessee has questioned action of the ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the application for admission of additional evidences moved by the assessee under Rule 46A regarding unsecured loan of Rs. 50,000/- and outstanding sundry creditors at Rs. 1,70,286/-.

Waltask Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

3. In support of the ground, the ld. AR submitted that there was sufficient reason for non-furnishing of these evidences in the shape of confirmation of unsecured loan from Rajiv Arya expenses payable and security outstanding totaling to Rs. 1,70,286/-, incurring of expenses of purchase administration, selling and other expenses at Rs. 3,93,030/-, and trade tax assessment order for financial year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. These evidences could not be produced before the assessing officer because during that period the business of the assessee was closed down and assessee was in service outside Meerut, thus, he was unable to comply and file the evidence, which were necessary for the adjudication of the issues. The ld. AR contended further that entire liability side alongwith entire expenditure incurred have been treated as unexplained credit/bogus expenses, in the assessment framed u/s 144 of the Act. He referred page nos. 26 to 33 of the paper book which are copies of confirmation of loan from Rajeev Ahluwali, Director of the company, along with copy of capital account and HDFC Bank account from which loan amount was given to the company; TDS Challan of Rs. 868 paid on 24.5.2007, audit fee payable, VAT Challan of Rs. 1,041/- paid on 25.4.2007; confirmation of security from Bhawani Medicine Centre, as appearing in balance sheet on 31.3.2006 and 31.3.2007 and confirmation from Kukreti Medical Traders as appearing in the balance on 31.3.2006 and 31.3.2007.

4. The ld. Sr. DR on the other hand opposed the above submission of the assessee with this contention that more than sufficient time was given by the AO to establish the case of the assessee to which the assessee has thoroughly failed, hence, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the 3 ITA No.263/Del/2015 Waltask Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

application of the assessee for admission of the additional evidences moved under Rule 46A.

5. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the application moved under Rule 46A by the assessee for the admission of additional evidences mainly on the basis that the AO had given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for the purpose. On the other hand, the assessee has explained the circumstances, as discussed above under which the assessee could not furnish the above stated evidences before the assessing officer. There is no reason with us to doubt those explanation of the assessee and in our view those circumstances for the assessee was sufficient for non- furnishing of the above stated evidences before the AO and the assessment was ultimately passed u/s 144 of the IT Act. We are, thus, of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the application of the assessee, which has been made available at page no. 21 of the paper book as these evidences were also necessary for the adjudication of the issues of unsecured loan and outstanding sundry creditor. We, thus, while allowing the application of the assessee for the admission of additional evidences mentioned hereinabove set aside the matter to the file of the AO to consider the case of the assessee on the above issues afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

6. In the result appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Waltask Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 29/02/2016).

          Sd/-                                 Sd/-
  (Prashant Maharishi)                  (I.C.Sudhir)
ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR                     JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 29/ 02/2016
*Binita*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
DR: ITAT                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

5.
                                           5                         ITA No.263/Del/2015
                                                              Waltask Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.




                                                     Date        Initial
1.    Draft dictated on                          24.02.2016
2.    Draft placed before author                 24.02.2016
3.    Draft proposed & placed before the                                      JM/AM
      second member
4.    Draft discussed/approved by Second                                      JM/AM
      Member.
5.    Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS                                    PS/PS
6.    Kept for pronouncement on                  29.02.2016                   PS
7.    File sent to the Bench Clerk                                            PS
8.    Date on which file goes to the AR

9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.

10. Date of dispatch of Order.