Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: due date for vat payment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: empanelment :: VAT Audit :: form 3cd
 
 
From the Courts »
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a

ACIT, Ltd.,Circle-4 (1) New Delhi. VS. M/s Logitronics Pvt. 1745, 2nd Floor, Room No.1, Hardayal Street, Cheera Khana, Nai Sarak, Delhi.
April, 17th 2013
                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                     (DELHI BENCH `D' NEW DELHI)

               BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                  AND
                SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                           I.T.A. No.4389 /Del/2011
                          Assessment year : 2008-09

             ACIT,                    M/s Logitronics Pvt. Ltd.,
             Circle-4 (1),            1745, 2nd Floor, Room No.1,
             New Delhi.          V.   Hardayal Street, Cheera Khana,
                                      Nai Sarak, Delhi.
            (Appellant)                     (Respondent)

                              /GIR/No.AAACl-
                                      AAACl-0281-
                          PAN /GIR/No.AAACl 0281-H

                   Appellant by : Ms. Leena Srivastava, DR.
                   Respondent by : Shri Anil K. Sujanti, C.A.

                                      ORDER

PER TS KAPOOR, AM:

  This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Ld CIT(A)
dated 19.7.2011. The grounds raised by the revenue are as under:-


  1. The order of the Ld CIT(A) is erroneous and contrary to facts and
     law.
  2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
     Ld CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidence filed by
     the assessee before him.
  3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
     Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of `.11,93,100/-
     made by Assessing Officer in respect of share capital for want of
     verification of genuineness ignoring that.
                                        2                 ITA No4389/Del/11





     3.1.   that the clarification and documents furnished before the
            CIT(A) remained unverified by the Assessing Officer.
     4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
     Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of `.13,98,835/- made
     by Assessing Officer in respect of unsecured loans for want of
     verification of genuineness that
     4.1. That the clarification and documents furnished before the
     CIT(A) remained unverified by the Assessing Officer.
     5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
     Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of `.5,29,108/- made by
     Assessing Officer in respect of sundry creditors for want of
     verification of genuineness that
     5.1. That the clarification and documents furnished before the
     CIT(A) remained unverified by the Assessing Officer.


     6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
     Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of `.21,078/- made by
     Assessing Officer in respect of cash & bank balance for want of
     verification of genuineness that
     6.1. That the clarification and documents furnished before the
     CIT(A) remained unverified by the Assessing Officer.


     7. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any grounds
     of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing.


2.      The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was
selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.9.2009 for
which there was no response. Then notice u/s 143(2) was again issued
on 9.7.2010 on which date also nobody attended. However, on
1.11.2010, the Ld AR of the assessee appeared and filed a copy of
                                    3                 ITA No4389/Del/11


balance sheet and Profit & Loss Account along with the notes and the
case was adjourned to 12.11.2010 on which date nobody appeared
Further a notice dated 6.12.2010 was issued and assessee was asked
through an affixture of notice at the last known address to file return of
income on or before 10.12.2010 to which no response was received
and again notice u/s 142(2)(1) dated 28.12.2010 was issued and
assessee was given another opportunity for filing its return of income
on or before 29.12.2010. However, the assessee filed return of income
on 30.12.2010 and declared nil income. In the meantime, the assessee
was given a notice dated 29.12.2010 for completion of assessment
order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the assessment was
getting time barred, the Assessing Officer made the additions on
account of outstanding balances of share capital, unsecured loan and
cash & bank balances and sundry creditors amounting in all to
`.31,42,114/- as income of the assessee.


3.    Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal
before Ld CIT(A) and under Rule 46A(3) filed copy of return along with
the acknowledgement along with copy of letter dated 12.11.2010 filed
on 30.11.2010 with all enclosures. It was requested that assessee was
prevented for filing of these documents before the Assessing Officer
and request as made for acceptance of the same as additional
evidence.


4.    The Ld CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to file a remand
report and Assessing Officer vide letter dated 29.4.2011 filed a remand
report in which he briefly stated the facts of the case and submitted
that as the assessee did not file necessary details, the addition was
made on the basis of available documents. Therefore, it was requested
that additional evidence be rejected.
                                  4                    ITA No4389/Del/11




5.   The Ld CIT(A) after going through the submissions of Ld AR along
with copy of remand report and rejoinder thereon observed that the
addition made by the Assessing Officer related to only opening
balances and there was no fresh addition in respect of unsecured loan
or share capital or in respect of sundry creditors. Therefore, the Ld
CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer holding as
under:-


     "I have carefully considered the written submission on behalf of
     the appellant. The finding of the Assessing Officer and the facts
     on record, I have also perused the balance sheet and the P&L
     Account of the appellant for the previous year relevant to
     assessment year 2008-09. The perusal of the same shows that
     there has been no increase in the share capital during the year
     under consideration and the amount of `.11,93,100/- is the old
     issued, subscribed and paid up share capital. The unsecured
     loans of `.13,98,835/- are also found to be old unsecured loans.
     The perusal of the details of sundry creditors reveals that there
     are also old corresponding entries carried forward from the
     earlier years. The cash and bank balance of `.21,078/- is found to
     be factually correct on verification of the cash book and the bank
     statement. In view of the facts stated above, it can be safely
     concluded that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making
     addition of `.31,42,114/- consisting of (a) `.11,93,100/- to the
     total income of the assessee on account of share capital u/s 68 of
     the Act and (b) `.13,98,835/- on account of unsecured loans, (c )
     `.5,29,101/- and (d) `.21,078/- on account of cash and bank
     balances. As a result, ground No.2 is allowed."
                                   5                ITA No4389/Del/11


6.    Aggrieved, the revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal.


7.    At the outset, the Ld DR submitted that several opportunities
were given to the assessee and ld CIT(A) had wrongly concluded that
assessee   was   prevented by sufficient cause      to file   necessary
documents before the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, he
argued that the deletion by ld CIT(A) on the basis of additional
evidence was bad in law.


8.    The Ld AR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of Ld CIT(A)
and submitted that Ld CIT(A) has considered the merits of the case. He
further submitted that no enquiry was required as the Assessing
Officer had just made addition of old outstanding liabilities and there
was no fresh addition in respect of share capital, unsecured loan and or
sundry creditors. Therefore, he argued that Ld CIT(A) has rightly
deleted the additions.


9.    We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and
have gone through the material available on record. We find that
assessee had not filed any return of income and as per assessment
order the case was selected as per guidelines of CBDT/ The Assessing
Officer vide notice dated 6.12.2010 asked the assessee to submit
return of income on or before 10.12.2010. As the case was becoming
time bared, the Ld Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s
144 of the Act by adding the balances as appearing in the balance
sheet. As per P&L account placed at page 32 of paper book it appears
that company had no business income. It had only interest income on
income tax refund against which certain expenses were claimed. In the
earlier year also, there was no business income. The copy of balance
sheet placed at page 31 of paper book strengthen the findings of Ld
                                       6               ITA No4389/Del/11


CIT(A) that Assessing Officer had just taken the balances appearing as
on the date of balance sheet and computed the income which is totally
wrong and unjustified. All balances appearing in the balance sheet are
old outstanding balances.      The only difference is in the amount of
unsecured loan, the amount of which had reduced from `.15,63,835/-
to `.13,,98,835/- and similarly there is a reduction in the amount of
sundry creditors due to payment of some of them. Similarly, there is
some change in the amount of cash and bank balances which seems to
be on account of part payment of sundry creditors.





10.    Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion
that Ld CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. The Assessing Officer
had not commented upon the merits of the addition and from the facts
and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no further
verification was required as such as the additions were only on account
of outstanding old balances. In view of the above, we do not see any
infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A).
11.    In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
12.    Order pronounced in the open court on 12th day of April, 2013.


      Sd/-                                              Sd/-
 (U.B.S. BEDI)                                  (T.S. KAPOOR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dt. 12.4.2013.
HMS
Copy forwarded to:-
   1. The appellant
   2. The respondent
   3. The CIT
   4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.
   5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
True copy.
                                 7       ITA No4389/Del/11



                                          (ITAT, New Delhi).


Date of hearing                      28.1.2013

Date of Dictation                    9.4.2013

Date of Typing                       9.4.23013

Date of order signed by              12.4.2013
both the Members &
pronouncement.

Date of order uploaded on net        12.4.2013
& sent to the Bench concerned.
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - We Bring IT. Offshore software outsourcing company. We use Global Delivery Model (GDM) and believe in Follow The Sun principle

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions