AMIT SCAN PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1424/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 February 2019AY 2007-085 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the opening balance of Rs. 2,04,329/- within the sundry creditors needed re-verification. Consequently, the quantum addition was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the penalty was cancelled at this stage.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 4,42,166/- on account of sundry creditors and the subsequent levy of penalty. The Assessing Officer treated the sundry creditors as unexplained liability as no confirmation was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unexplained sundry creditors, including opening balance, is justified and if penalty is leviable in such circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. & SHRI L.P. SAHU, A.M.

Hearing: 13.02.2019Pronounced: 19.02.2019

For Assessee : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate And Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

Both the appeals by Assessee are directed against the different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Delhi, Dated 24.11.2010, for the A.Y. 2007-2008 and dated 04.12.2012 for the A.Y. 2007-2008, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2 ITA.No.3486/Del./2011 & ITA.No. 1424/Del./2013 Amit Scan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

2.

We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record.

3.

ITA.No.3486/Del./2011 was dismissed for default. However, M.A. of the assessee was allowed and appeal was re-fixed for hearing on merits. Appeal file is reconstructed.

4.

In ITA.No.3486/Del./2011, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee argued only on Ground No.2 and did not press remaining grounds. The remaining grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

5. On ground No.2, the assessee challenged the addition under section 68 of the I.T. Act in a sum of Rs.4,42,166/- on account of sundry creditors. The A.O. noted that assessee has shown the above sundry creditor as against purchase of Rs.9,20,518/- during the year. No confirmation was filed, therefore, it was treated as unexplained liability. The A.O. accordingly made the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

3 ITA.No.3486/Del./2011 & ITA.No. 1424/Del./2013 Amit Scan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

6.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to page-10 of the PB to show that out of the above amount, there is opening balance of Rs.2,04,329/- as on 01.04.2006 and submitted that addition cannot be made accordingly.

7.

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires re-consideration at the level of the A.O. Since this amount of Rs.2,04,329/- is opening balance, therefore, the A.O. should re-decide this issue by verifying the facts of the case. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and restore this ground to the file of A.O. with a direction to re-decide the issue as per Law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

In the result, ITA.No.3486/Del./2011 of the assessee allowed partly for statistical purposes.

ITA.No.1424/Del./2013 :

9.

The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on addition of Rs.4,42,166/- because the addition has attained finality. However, we have restored this issue to the file of 4 ITA.No.3486/Del./2011 & ITA.No. 1424/Del./2013 Amit Scan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi A.O, therefore, no penalty is leviable at this stage. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty at this stage. However, the A.O. is at liberty to take steps for levy of the penalty, if so advised as per Law, after passing the Order on quantum.

10.

In the result, ITA.No.1424/Del./2013 of the Assessee is allowed.

11.

To sum-up, ITA.No.3486/Del./2011 of the Assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes and ITA.No.1424/Del./2013 of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →