UMESH JOSHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT , CIRCLE 59(1), NEW DELHI

ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The Stay Application seeks the stay of demand of Rs.3,21,742/- pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and Income Tax Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi {CIT (A)} for Assessment Year: 2014-15.

2.0 We take up the appeal of the assessee first. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and the return of income was 2 SA No.898/Del/2019 & Sh. Umesh Joshi Vs. ACIT filed declaring an income of Rs.21,00,291/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS due to the reason ‘large amount of sundry creditors’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce a list of sundry creditors along with the postal addresses. Notices u/s 133(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) were sent to the creditors on a test- check basis. Notices sent to three parties were returned undelivered. The Assessing Officer accordingly proceeded to add the amount shown against credit entries in respect of these three parties and the assessment was completed at an income of Rs.30,17,600/- on ground that the assessee had written off these three liabilities. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the assessment order. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the upholding of the assessment.

3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that these amount have been subsequently paid to the three parties and that even the Ld. CIT (A) has noted in Para-7 of his order that although the intention of the appellant was not to pay the outstanding amount but during the assessment proceedings when these facts were pointed out and subjected to the enquiry and investigation by the Assessing Officer, the 3 SA No.898/Del/2019 & Sh. Umesh Joshi Vs. ACIT payments were made by the appellant. The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that, thus, even the Ld. CIT (A) has accepted that payments have been made.

3.1 On a query for the Bench, the Ld. Authorized Representative agreed that if given an opportunity, the assessee would get the fact of the payments having been made verified before the Assessing Officer.

4.0 The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative placed his reliance on the orders of the Lower Authorities and opposed the prayer of the Authorized Representative for being provided with another opportunity to get the fact of payments having been made verified.

5.0 Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the impugned order, we note that even the Ld. CIT (A) has clearly stated in Para-7 of the impugned order that the assessee had made payments when the assessment proceedings were going on. We fail to understand the reason behind the Ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition when he himself has accepted that the impugned payments had been made at the time of the ongoing assessment proceedings. It only remains to be verified as to how and when these payment were made and the Assessing Officer is the best person to do so. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we

4 SA No.898/Del/2019 & Sh. Umesh Joshi Vs. ACIT restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the fact of payments having been made to the three parties as claimed by the assessee and to allow the same, if the same is found to be correct after such verification. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall afford proper and reasonable opportunity to the assessee for getting his claim of payments being verified.

6.0 Since, the appeal of the assessee has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, the above captioned Stay Application becomes in fructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

7.0 In the final result, the Stay Application of the assessee stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.