DCIT, Hyderabad v. Dhanbadanlal ,Prop:M/s Tel Udyog, Hyderabad

ITA 494/HYD/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 49422514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAJPL1645F
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 494/HYD/2009
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Hyderabad
Respondent Dhanbadanlal ,Prop:M/s Tel Udyog, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 25-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 25-01-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 13-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH 'A' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN AND SHRI AKBER BASHA I.T.A.NO.494/HYD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DY. CIT CIRCLE 9(1) HYDERABAD. .. APPELLANT VERSUS DHANBADANLAL PROP: M/S TEL UDYOG HYDERABAD. ..RESPONDENT (PAN AAJPL1645F) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.PHANI RAJU RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.A.SAI PRASAD O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) VIJAYAWADA DATED 29-1-2009 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASST. YEAR 2004- 05. 2. SHRI H.PHANI RAJU LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.7 63 6 01 ON THE GROUND THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY BILLS FOR PURCHASES SAID TO BE MA DE. THEREFORE THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.7 63 601. HOWEVER IT APPEARS THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A) DURING THE COURSE OF AP PEAL PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT (A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO DELE TED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7 63 601. SINCE NO OPPORTUNI TY WAS GIVEN TO THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE THE LEARNED 2 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATT ER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-EXAMINATION ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SAID TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1 16 4 00 WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE NAME OF M/S MANIYAR INDUS TRIES. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE CREDITOR. THEREFORE T HE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 16 400. HOWEVER THE CIT (A) FOUND THAT IN THE ACCOUNT OF MANIYAR INDUSTRIES THE OPENING BALAN CE WAS SHOWN AS ON 1-4- 2003 AT RS.1 16 400 AND THIS OPENING BALANCE REMAIN ED AS THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31-3-2004. THERE WAS NO DIFFERENT IN PURCHASE S AND THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE OPENING BALANC E. THEREFORE THE CIT (A) FOUND THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF OP ENING BALANCE. SIMILARLY AN ADDITION OF RS.1 15 231 WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE G ROUND THAT THE SALES RETURNS OF RS.1 15 231 WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE CIT (A) AFTER VERIFYING THE SALES RETURNS ACCOUNT FILED BEFORE HIM FOUND THAT THE DETAILS OF VOUCHERS PASSED FOR THE RELEVANT SAL ES RETURNS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THEREFORE HE DELETED THE ADDITI ON. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE P RODUCED BEFORE THE CIT (A). THEREFORE THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-C ONSIDERATION. ON A QUERY FORM THE BENCH WHETHER ANY ADDITION COULD BE MADE I N THE CASE OF MANIYAR INDUSTRIES ON ACCOUNT OF THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PURCHASES 3 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VERY FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION ON THE OPENING BALANCE WHEN THERE W AS NO PURCHASE DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. HOWEVER IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ADDITIONS THE CIT (A) RELIED UPON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THEREFORE THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMANDED TO THE AO. 3. ON THE CONTRARY SHRI SAI PRASAD LEARNED REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A). REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH BILLS FOR THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THE AO AFTER VERIFYIN G THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BILLS FOR EXPENDITURE FOUND THAT SOME OF THE BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF R S.43 175. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF BILLS WHICH W ERE NOT PRODUCED AN AGREED ADDITION OF RS.43 175 WAS MADE. THEREFORE IT IS NO T CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED NEW EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A). ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE THE ENTIRE MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE W ITH THE AO AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A NY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER S IDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED BILLS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7 63 601 IN RESPECT OF SEVEN PARTIES VIZ. PR IME PACKAGING ASWANI BULK CARRIERS SONU PACKERS TIRUMALA TRADERS DURGA OIL MILL MAHESWARI ENTERPRISES AND ANUPAMA OIL CO. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BILLS FOR EXPENDITURE WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY 4 STATED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF HIS ORDER THAT NO BILLS WE RE PRODUCED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7 63 601. THE AO AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT BILLS WERE AVAILABLE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.7 63 601 ON THE G ROUND THAT NO BILLS WERE AVAILABLE. NO DOUBT WHEN NO PURCHASES WERE MADE T HERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION AS FAIRLY AGREED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE. HOWEVER IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE PURCHASES IT IS FOR THE A SSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY BILLS BEFORE THE AO FOR VERIFICATION. WHE N THE AO SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO H AVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO CONTRADICT THE CONTENTS OF THE MATERIAL P RODUCED BEFORE THE CIT (A). SINCE SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN IN OUR OPI NION THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIA L THAT WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AS CONCEDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THERE CANNOT BE ANY AD DITION IN RESPECT OF OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCES WHEN NO PURCHASES WERE MADE DU RING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOW EVER WHEREVER THERE IS A PURCHASE IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BIL LS BEFORE THE AO FOR VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO SHALL CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT WAS PRODUC ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE M AKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT MATERIAL B EFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION IN ADDITION TO THE MATERIAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A). 5 5. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1 16 400 ADMI TTEDLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF MANIY AR INDUSTRIES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES. WHEN THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION ON THE O PENING BALANCE. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1 16 400. 6. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1 15 231 THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE PRODUCED THE SALES RETURNS ACCOUNT BEFORE THE CIT (A) IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE SALES RETURNS ACCOUNT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE C IT (A) FOR THE FIRST TIME AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILAB LE BEFORE THE AO IN OUR OPINION THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTU NITY TO THE AO TO REBUT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). SINCE SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN THERE WAS CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 43A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO . THE AO SHALL CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29-1-10. SD SD (AKBER BASHA) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD 29TH JANUARY 2010. RRRAO. 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. SRI DHANVADANLAL PROP: M/S TEL UDYOG PLOT NOS.248 & 249 SRI KRUPA MARKET HYDERABAD. 2. DCIT CIRCLE 9(1) HYDERABAD. 3. CIT VI HYDERABAD. 4. CIT (A) VIJAYAWADA. 5. DR ITAT HYDERABAD.