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: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: form 3cd
« From the Courts »
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)
 M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
 Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

M/s Verma Plywood Industries,Chandigarh Vs The ITO, Ward 5(1),Chandigarh
June, 29th 2012


                               ITA No. 1214/Chd/2011
                              Assessment Year: 2007-08

M/s Verma Plywood Industries,                    Vs   The ITO, Ward 5(1),
Chandigarh                                            Chandigarh


(Appellant)                                           (Respondent)

                     Appellant By                : Shri Krishan Mangawa
                     Respondent By               : Shri Akhilesh Gupta

                     Date of hearing       : 26.06.2012
                     Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2012


     This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of

CIT(A), Chandigarh dated 13.10.2011 relating to assessment year 2007-08.

2.   In this appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds:-

          1.    a)   That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding
               the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

                b) That without prejudice to above, the appellant
               disputes the quantum of addition.

     2.        That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the
               addition of Rs. 3 lacs on the basis that the said addition
               was agreed addition.

      3.        That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not deciding the
                appeal on merits and the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set

      4.        That the appellant craves leave for any addition,
                deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or
                before the disposal of the same.

3.    Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a

manufacturing concern and manufacturing plywood / plyboard.                 For the

assessment year 2007-08, the assessee firm filed its return of income

declaring total income at Rs. 84,030/- on 31.10.2007, which was processed

u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 13.3.2009.

The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on

26.9.2008. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on

15.4.2009. Again notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 4.6.2009 on the

change     of   Assessing    Officer.   The   Assessing   Officer   found    certain

discrepancies in the books of account of assessee and Shri Neeraj Jain, CA,

Ld. Counsel for the assessee agreed for an addition of Rs. 3 lacs subject to

no penalty to cover up any discrepancy in the books of account.             Thus an

addition of Rs. 3 lacs was made to the income of the assessee.

4.    Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the

matter in appeal before the CIT(A).

5.    The CIT(A) dismis sed the appeal of the assessee observing as under:-

           2.3     During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld.
                   counsel     for   the    appellant   has     submitted     that    no
                   discrepancy was found in the books of account, but the
                   appellant agreed for the addition, subject to no penalty,
                   but   the   Assessing      Officer     has     initiated    penalty
                   proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

           2.4     I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel for
                   the appellant.          The Ld. Counsel cannot contest the
                   addition because it was an agreed addition.                       The
                   addition made by the Assessing Officer is accordingly
                   confirmed. Ground of appeal No.1 is dismissed."

6.         I have heard the rival submis sions and have also perused the materials

available on record. It is apparent from the order of the Assessing Officer

that the authorized representative of the assessee Shri Neeraj Jain, CA

appeared before the Assessing Officer and agreed to the addition of Rs.

3,00,000/-. It means the that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee accepted that

there were certain discrepancies in the books of account of the assessee. As

per paras 2.3 and 2.4 of the impugned order also, it is clear that during the

appellate proceedings, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not controvert

the findings of the Assessing Officer. In my considered opinion, the orders

passed by the lower authorities on an agreement can not give rise to the

grievances and the same cannot be agitated in appeal                   before the Tribunal.

The view taken by me is duly s upported by following judgments:-

     i)          Banta Singh Kartar Singh v CIT, Patiala (1980) 125 ITR 239(P &H)

     ii)         Jivatlal Purtapshi v CIT, Bombay (1967) 65 ITR 261 (Bom)

7.     In my opinion, the assessee agreed to the impugned addition before

both the authorities below, therefore, cannot be held to be aggrieved by these

orders. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee regarding deletion of addition

is neither competent nor capable of being entertained by the Tribunal.      In

view of the above discussion, I dismis s the appeal of the assessee.

8      In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

       Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 27 t h June, 2012.


                                                      VI CE PRESIDENT
Dated : 27 t h   June, 2012

Copy to:
  1.     The Appellant
  2.     The Respondent
  3.     The CIT
  4.     The CIT(A)
  5.     The DR

                          True Copy
                                                     By Order

                                                 Assistant Registrar
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Privacy Policy

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