SHRI SITA RAM SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 725/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 January 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter required re-examination by the Assessing Officer. This was particularly relevant given the assessee's claim of sales and denial of payments, supported by ledger accounts.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13, primarily on the grounds that additional evidence was not admitted and an addition was made under Section 68 for outstanding debtors. The assessee argued that the additional evidence, which supported sales and subsequent payments, should have been considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence and if an addition under Section 68 is valid for undisputed outstanding debtors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC

Before: SHRI BHAGCHANDvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 725/JP/2017

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 05/01/2018Pronounced: 08/01/2018

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 725/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Sita Ram Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prop.- M/s Sharma & Company, Ward-3(2), Somani Building, Station Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS 5403 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri K.L. Moolchandani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 05/01/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 08/01/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 19/07/2017 for the A.Y. 2012-13,

wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has factually and legally erred in not admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. This is contrary to the principles of ‘Equity’ and ‘Natural Justice’ as these details and evidences go to the root of the point.

ITA 725/JP/2017_ 2 Sita Ram Sharma Vs ITO

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has factually and legally erred in exercising the co- terminus powers to invoke provisions of section 68 of the Act for making addition on account of the ‘Outstanding Debtors’. As per Accountancy Rules, no valid addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act on account of the ‘undisputed outstanding debtors’.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances, the Authorities Below have erred in making addition of Rs.3,19,380/- without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. The addition so made is factually and legally incorrect and same deserves to be deleted summarily.

2.

At the outset of hearing, the ld AR has submitted that the

assessee submitted additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A) as per

Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules) but the

same has not been considered by him. He submitted that in the interest

of justice and equity, the additional evidences submitted by the

assessee may be admitted and matter may be restored back to the file

of the Assessing Officer as the factual verification with regard to the

sales made by the assessee to the M/s Vijay Laxmi Agro and the

payments received in response to that needs verification. Ld. A.R.

submitted that the ledger account of M/s Vijay laxmi Agro clearly

establishes that the assessee has sold agricultural implements and has

received the amount back in various installments, which has been duly

reflected in the cash book of the assessee as well as the ledger account

ITA 725/JP/2017_ 3 Sita Ram Sharma Vs ITO of M/s Vijay Laxmi Agro. Therefore, on the merits also, this addition

deserves to be deleted.

3.

On the other hand, the ld Sr.DR has relied on the orders of the

authorities below.

4.

After hearing both the sides and considering the factual position

of the issue, the Bench is of the views that in the interest of justice and

equity, the matter needs a relook at the level of the Assessing Officer

particularly when the assessee has sold the goods to M/s Vijay Laxmi

Agro and the payments has been denied in respect of these sales.

Hence, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes only.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08/01/2018.

Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08th January, 2018

*Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Sita Ram Sharma, Jaipur. 1.

ITA 725/JP/2017_ 4 Sita Ram Sharma Vs ITO izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-3(2), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 725/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →