Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Lucky Dyeing Mills Pvt.Ltd.,, Surat vs Income Tax Officer,Ward-1(4),, Surat on 28 April, 2017
ITA No.1948/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, "SMC", AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM] ITA No.1948/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Lucky Dyeing Mills Pvt. Ltd. ......................Appellant Plot No.1 to 9,Opp. BRC, Udhna, Surat - 394 210.
[PAN: AAACL 4047 R] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Surat. .................Respondent Appearances by:
Rajesh M. Upadhyay, for the appellant Dinesh Singh, for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: 14.02.2017 Date of pronouncing the order: 28.04.2017 O R D E R
1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 21st June 2013, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2005-06.
2. The only grievance raised in this appeal is as follows :-
"Ld. CIT(A)-I, Surat has erred in law and on facts to confirm Assessing Officer's addition of Rs.3,40,406/- u/s 69C of the Act, ignoring the fact that there is no need to appellant for purchase of lignite when its factory closed production in October, 2004. Further, Ld. CIT has also erred in not admitting a certificate and confirmation from M/s. Dharamraj Enterprise (transporter), which goes to the root of issue before him. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) has also erred in following ITAT, Ahmedabad direction judicially."ITA No.1948/Ahd/2013
Assessment Year: 2005-06 Page 2 of 3
3. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are like this. This is second round of proceeding, and it pertains to an addition of Rs 3,40,403 under section 69C of the Act on account of alleged unaccounted purchase from Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation. In the first round, the matter had reached a division bench of this Tribunal, and the Division Bench, vide order dated 12th August 2011, had remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. In the subsequent proceedings, the assessee was confronted with the information received from GMDC that the assessee had lifted coal from GMDC for the value of Rs 3,40,403 during this period and that account of the assessee was credited by Rs 7,85,682 whereas the assessee had shown payment of only Rs 4,45,289 by bank demand draft. The assessee, however, took the stand that there was no need to purchase the coal as the factory was closed, and that, in any event, the onus is on the Assessing Officer to show that the demand drafts belonged to the assessee. The assesse urged the Assessing Officer to supply all the related evidences. This hyper technical stand of the assessee, and explanation furnished by the assessee, was rejected. The Assessing Officer thus reiterated the addition of Rs 3,20,403. Once again, the assessee was in appeal before the CITTAI but without any success. Not satisfied, the assessee is in second appeal before this Tribunal.
4. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.
5. In my considered view, the hyper technical approach of the assessee cannot meet any judicial approval. The Assessing Officer has been given a copy of account in GMDC which clearly shows that, as per the GMDC, the amount was paid by the assessee and the coal was lifted. The evidence about closure of factory, evidence about the fact that assessee's regular commission agent was not involved in this transaction and evidence about having communicated other government agencies about closure of factory is ITA No.1948/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Page 3 of 3 irrelevant. Even if the factory was closed, even if fact of factory closure was given to the parties and even if this transaction was not entered into by assessee's regular commission agent, the evidence about payment made on behalf of the assessee and the coal being lifted on behalf of the assessee exists and it cannot be wished away. The assessee did not seek cross examination of the GMDC, nor did he take up the matter directly with the GMDC, in this regard. There is no material whatsoever to show that the assessee had taken up the matter with GMDC at all. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, I deem it fit and proper to decline to interfere in the matter. The findings of the authorities below are confirmed.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today the 28th day of April, 2017.
Sd/-
Pramod Kumar
(Accountant Member)
Dated: the 28 t h day of April, 2017.
PBN/*
Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent
(3) CIT (4) CIT(A)
(5) DR (6) Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad