IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES : "F" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No: 4495/Del/2013
Asstt. year 2007-08
M/s. R.L. Traders vs. ITO
2046, Katra Tobacco Ward-29(1)
Khari Baoli
New Delhi- 110 006 New Delhi
(PAN AAAFR5508C)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No: 5300/Del/2013
Asstt. year 2007-08
ITO vs. M/s. R.L. Traders
Ward-29(1), Room No. 103 2046, Katra Tobacco
Drum Shaped Building, Khari Baoli
I.P. Estate New Delhi 110 006.
New Delhi (PAN AAAFR5508C)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate
Respondent by :Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing :23.7.2015
Date of pronouncement : 2015
ORDER
PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
These are cross appeals directed against the order of the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi dated 14.6.2013 for the assessment years
2007-08.
ITA Nos. 4495,5300/Del/2013
M/s. R.L. Traders vs. ITO
2. Facts in brief : Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of
purchase of starch, oil, gum and sale of hing as per requirement of the customers.
It filed its return of income on 30.10.2007.The AO determined the total income at
Rs. 30,70,270/-, by estimating gross profit @ 15% on sale. Aggrieved the assessee
carried the matter on appeal. The first appellate authority partly allowed the appeal
of the assessee. For the assessment year 2000-01 and for the assessment year
2006-07, similar addition was made by the AO and on appeal the Ld. CIT(A) -II
New Delhi, vide order dated 31.8.2010 deleted the addition. This order was
confirmed by the ITAT, `F' bench Delhi vide order dated 17.6.2011 in ITA No. 4768
to 4744 /Del/2010. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned assessment year deleted the
addition by following the order of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years. The
revenue filed an appeal on this issue.
3. The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,34,584/- as unexplained cash credit of Rs.
1 lac received from M/s. Pradeep Kumar Bansal, HUF and interest debited thereon.
The addition was made by the AO, as the assessee could not produce the Karta of
the HUF Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal. The assessee had also not produced any
confirmation letter from M/s, Pradeep Kumar Bansal HUF. Instead he requested the
AO to issue summons to Shri Bansal u/s 131, of the Income Tax Act, which the AO
did. Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal appeared before the AO and stated that he has
given only a book entry of loan of Rs. 50,000/- to M/s. R.L. Traders, in exchange of
cash of Rs. 50,000/- and that the transaction was not a genuine transaction. Shri
Pradeep Kumar Bansal further stated that his HUF has also given a bogus loan entry
of Rs. 50,000/- to M/s. R.L. Traders and that his wife Smt. Shashi Bala Bansal, has
also given a bogus loan entry of Rs. 1 lac to M/s. R.L. Traders during the year 2007-
2
ITA Nos. 4495,5300/Del/2013
M/s. R.L. Traders vs. ITO
08. Based on these submissions the addition was made by the AO and confirmed by
the first appellate authority. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assesee Shri K.R.Manjani submits that statement of Shri
Bansal was recorded behind his back and that the assesee has filed all details that
were in his control. He contended that the AO summoned Shri P.K. Bansal originally
on a particular date and did not record the statement of Shri Bansal on that date, as
the assessee was also present on that date, and later, just before completion of
assessment on 4.12.2009 has hastly recorded the statement on 29.11.2009 and
made the addition, without giving the assessee any opportunity.
5. He submits that by the time Ld. CIT(A) asked for the remand report, Shri
Pradeep Kumar Bansal passed away and hence he could not be cross examined.
Thus he prays that the statement of Shri Bansal can not be considered as evidence.
6. Ld. DR referred to the statement of Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal and relied
on the order of the first appellate authority. He submitted that no evidence is filed
by the assesee and hence the addition is to be confirmed.
7. After hearing rival contentions, we find that Shri Pramod Kumar Bansal has
been summoned only on the request of the assessee, for the reason that the
assessee could not produce him nor any evidence in support of the transaction. . In
the statement recorded Shri Pramod Kumar Bansal clearly states that all these loans
are bogus loans. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently contends that a
statement from Shri Pramod Kumar Bansal was not recorded on 21st June, 2009
when the original summons were given, but on a later date behind is back. As cross
examination was not given to the assessee the evidential value of the statement
3
ITA Nos. 4495,5300/Del/2013
M/s. R.L. Traders vs. ITO
recorded by the AO on 20.11.2009 can be ignored. When the statement of Shri
Bansal is ignored, then the initial burden is on the assesee to prove the transaction
is genuine. This burden is not discharged by the assessee. Hence we uphold the
order of the first appellate authority on this issue and dismiss this ground of appeal
of the assessee.
8. The revenue appeal is against the deletion of addition made, by applying GP
rate of 15%. As this issue is admittedly covered in favour of the assessee against the
revenue by a decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case on the very same
facts for the earlier assessment year, we find no reason to interfere in the order of
the first appellate authority. Hence we dismiss this appeal of the revenue.
9. In the result both the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are
dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th August, 2015.
sd/- sd/-
(C.M. GARG) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: the 14th August, 2015
`veena'
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
6. Guard File By order
Dy. Registrar
4
ITA Nos. 4495,5300/Del/2013
M/s. R.L. Traders vs. ITO
Sl. Description Date
No.
1. Date of dictation by the Author 10.8..2015
2. Draft placed before the Dictating Member 11.8.2015
3. Draft placed before the Second Member
4. Draft approved by the Second Member
5. Date of approved order comes to the Sr. PS
6. Date of pronouncement of order
7. Date of file sent to the Bench Clerk
8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk
9. Date of dispatch of order
5
|
