PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR vs. SH ANIL KUMAR WASAN PROP M/S AMOGH ENTERPRISES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/86/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01077019202413 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court found no substantial question of law or perversity in the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The Tribunal's finding that additional evidence, including PAN, confirmations, and bills, was accepted by the CIT(A) under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was noted. The Court also acknowledged the Tribunal's observation that these documents were filed before the revenue authorities and no objection was raised by the Departmental Representative (DR). Furthermore, the Tribunal's finding that the balance of sundry creditors was carried forward from earlier years and could not have been added back in the impugned year was also considered. The Court concluded that the grounds raised by the revenue were purely factual and did not warrant interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar, filed an appeal against the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2014-15. The Revenue contended that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the ITAT failed to consider the submissions regarding the worthiness of sundry creditors. The Revenue argued that there was a lack of documentary evidence and that the sundry creditors lacked worthiness. The ITAT had found that additional evidence, including PAN, confirmation, and bills, was accepted by the CIT(A) under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as the assessee had filed these documents before the revenue authorities and no objection was raised by the Departmental Representative (DR). The ITAT also noted that the balance of sundry creditors was carried forward from earlier years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to accept additional evidence, specifically PAN, confirmations, and bills, for sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 5,68,93,270/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the revenue contended that such evidence was not properly considered and the creditors lacked worthiness? Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the additional evidence (PAN, confirmations, and bills) was accepted by the CIT(A) under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as these documents were filed before the revenue authorities and no objection was raised by the DR. The balance of sundry creditors was carried forward from earlier years, and the same could not have been added back in the impugned year. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that both the CIT(A) and the ITAT failed to consider the submissions on behalf of the revenue in their true perspective. It was argued that the sundry creditors lacked worthiness and there was a lack of documentary evidence. The revenue believed the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of sundry creditors was proper and correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-86-2024(O 116

IN TH

Pr. Commissi Sh.Anil Kuma CORAM: H

H Present: M

f SANJEEV P

P passed by the for the assessm 2.

L and ITAT hav the revenue i Sundry Credit the order o Rs.5,68,93,27 3.

W re-examined t at the level of the Income T CIT(A), whic Books of Acc O&M) Page 1 of 2 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR oner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar Vs.

ar Wasan **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing for the appellant. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Present appeal has been filed aga e Income Tax Appellate Tribuna ment year 2014-15. Learned counsel for the revenue ve failed to take into considerati in their true perspective. It is s tors lack worthiness. There is lac of AO on account of Sun 70/-, under Section 68 of the Act We have considered the submiss the factual aspect in relation to th f CIT (A). The Tribunal found t Tax Rules, 1962, the additional ch recorded that the assessee ha counts and Bills before both the r AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-86-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.08.2024 r . . . . APPELLANT . . . . RESPONDENT NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH g Counsel ) ainst the order dated 09.11.2023 al, Amritsar (for short, ‘ITAT’) e submits that both the CIT(A) ion the submissions on behalf of specifically pointed out that the ck of documentary evidence and ndry Creditors amounting to was proper and correct. sions and find that the ITAT has he evidence which was recorded that in terms of Rule 46 A(3) of evidence could be accepted by as filed the PAN, Confirmation, revenue authorities and the same

) 4 T T 3 ) ) f e d o s d f y , e RASHMI 2024.08.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-86-2024(O has not been carried forwa back in the i purely factual 4.

W ambiguity in t appeal is here 5.

P disposed of.

August 13, 202 Rashmi 1. Whethe 2. Whethe O&M) Page 2 of 2 objected by the DR. The bal ard from earlier years and the sa mpugned year. The grounds m l, have been rejected. We do not find any substantial the orders passed by the CIT(A) eby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applicati

(SANJ 24 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y lance of Sundry Creditors were ame could not have been added made by the revenue, which are question of law, perversity and ) and the ITAT, thus, the present ion(s), if any, shall also stands JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

e d e d t s RASHMI 2024.08.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →