IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI `A' BENCH
BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM
ITA no.5731/Del/2011
Assessment year:2006-07
ITO W ard-2(4),Room no. V/s . Bhargava Promoters Pvt.
381,3 r d Floor,CR Ltd., 7, Gurdwara Market,
Building,IP Estate, Old Seema Puri New Delhi
New Delhi
[PAN : AACCB4755C]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Venkatesh Mohan,AR
Revenue by Shri Alok Singh,DR
Date of hearing 20-06-2012
Date of pronouncement 20-06-2012
ORDER
A.N.Pahuja:- This appeal filed on 22.12.2011 by the Revenue against an order
dated 15.10.2011 of the learned CIT(A)-V, New Delhi, raises the following
grounds:-
1. "The Ld. CIT(A)has erred on facts and in law in deleting
addition of ` 74,02,500/-made on account unexplained
advances.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting
addition of `14,77,000/- made on account of unverified
advances in the name of Sh. Vikash Rao Vadi and Sh.
Anup Prasad.
3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to
amend, modify, after, add or forego any ground(s) of
appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this
appeal. "
2 ITA no.5731/Del./2011
2. Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring
income of `.7,04,756/- filed on 29th Nov, 2006 by the assessee, engaged in the
business of construction and renovation of buildings, was selected for scrutiny
with the service of a notice issued u/s143(2) of the Income-tax Act 1961,
(hereinafter referred to as the `Act']. During the course of assessment
proceedings, the Assessing Officer[AO in short] noticed that the assessee
reflected advances of `1,49,39,250/- against property. To a query by the A.O,
seeking evidence in support of these advances, the assessee did not furnish any
agreement with the parties from whom these advances were received .After
obtaining addresses of the parties, the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to
30 parties, of which 20 notices were returned unserved. Out of the remaining 10
parties, only 7 replied. In the light of various replies, the AO showcaused the
assessee as to why amount of advances be not added u/s 68 of the Act. In
response, the assessee replied that agreements had been executed with most
of the parties ,who replied in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act while for the
remaining parties, money had been refunded. However, the assessee did not
furnish any documentary evidence in support of these assertions while observing
that Shri Vikash Rao Vedi purchased property from the assessee for
consideration of `.6,50,000/- and advance of `.50,000/- was received while sale
deed had already been executed in the Financial Year 2005-06 and the
assessee reflected advance of `9 lacs without any basis. Apparently, the
assessee did not reflect correct amount of advance. Likewise, in respect of Shri
Anup Prasad, advance of `. 65,000/- was received and remaining amount of
`.9,35,000/- was received at the time of final sale on 25th Feb. 2006.However, the
assessee reflected advance ` Rs.2,50,000/- and `3,92,000/-, for which no
explanation was given. In view of the aforesaid facts, the A.O. added an amount
of `.88,79,500/- on account of unexplained advances , as detailed hereunder:
[In `]
Total Amount of Advance shown. 1,49,39,250/-
Less Confirmations received 48,69,750/-
Less Sale deed filed by assessee 26,67,000/-
3 ITA no.5731/Del./2011
Balance Amount 74,02,500/-
Add
Advance in the name of
Sh. Vikas Rao Vadi
and Sh Anup Prasad 14,77,000/-
Total Amount remaining unexplained 88,79,500/-
2. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) appeal, after having a remand report from the
AO on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and comments of the
assessee thereon, concluded as under:
"4.3 I have carefully considered the assessment order as well as
the written submission of the appellant as well as the remand
report. It appears from record that the appellant did not have
sufficient time to collect the necessary evidences, hence the
additional evidences filed during appeal proceedings are being
admitted. With regard to the addition of Rs.74,02,500/- on account
of unverified purchases, the A.O. has in the remand report
submitted as under;
"During remand proceedings notices u/s 133(6) issued to parties from
whom the assessee co has taken Advances amounting to Rs.74,02,500/-
The reply of these parties received. The complete ITR particulars of these
parties are also received alongwith replies. The Assessee co has provided
with complete books of accounts alongwith bills and vouchers. The
advances/transactions shown by the assessee co frm various parties are
duly reflected in his books of accounts. Therefore these seems to be
genuine"
In the light of these findings by the A.O. in the remand report
after enquiries and verification of books of accounts, the addition of
unexsplained advances of Rs.74,02,500/- are being deleted.
........................................................................................."
5.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case,
submissions of the appellant, documents placed on record, the
findings of the assessing officer remand, report given by assessing
officer and the rejoinder filed by the appellant. The A.O. has
submitted in the remand report in connection withs these advances
as under;
4 ITA no.5731/Del./2011
"That the advances in the name of Sh. Vikash Vadi and Anup Prasad is
also examined and the transaction is duly reflected in the books of
accounts of the assessee co."
In the light of the report given by the A.O. after verification of books
of accounts and after consideration of the explanation and
evidences furnished in support of the same, the addition on this
account is directed to be deleted.
4. The Revenue is now is in appeal before us against the aforesaid
finding of the ld. CIT(A) .The Ld. DR supported the order of the A.O. while the ld.
AR at on behalf of the assessee relied upon the findings in the impugned order..
5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the
case. After examining the details furnished by the assessee during the remand
proceedings, the A.O. concluded that all the aforesaid advances/transactions
were reflected by the assessee in their books of accounts and were genuine. In
these circumstances, especially when the Revenue did not place before us any
material, controverting the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the ld. CIT(A)
so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we have no basis to
interfere. In view thereof, ground nos. 1 & 2 in the appeal are dismissed.
6. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary
ground no. 3 in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed.
7. No other plea or argument was raised before us.
8. In the result, appeal is dismissed
Order pronounced in the open court immediately after the
conclusion of the hearing on 20.6.2012
Sd/- Sd/-
(U.B.S. BEDI) (A.N. PAHUJA)
(Judicial Member) (Accountant Member)
5 ITA no.5731/Del./2011
Copy of the Order forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
2. ITO W ard-2(4),New Delhi
3. CIT concerned
4. CIT(Appeals)-V, New Delhi.
5. DR, ITAT,'A' Bench, New Delhi
6. Guard File.
By Order,
Deputy/Asstt.Registrar
ITAT, Delhi
|
