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.
|
