ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR MARU, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 626/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2017AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the list of debtors found during the survey was not complete. The revenue failed to provide contrary material to rebut this finding.

What were the facts?

A search and seizure operation was conducted, and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 47,78,300/- on account of undisclosed debtors. The assessee contended that the list of debtors found was not updated and contained factual errors.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of undisclosed debtors was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) despite the seized material and assessee's statement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM

Hearing: 12/05/2017Pronounced: 23/05/2017

PER : SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M.

This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-4,

Jaipur dated 23.03.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 47,78,300/- made on account of undisclosed debtors ignoring the contents of the seized material and statement of the assessee.

2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was right in not appreciating the facts that the A.O during the course of assessment proceedings considered all aspect of issues as explained by the assessee and thereafter made addition on the point.”

“The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”

2

2.

Briefly stated the facts are that a search & seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was carried out on 08.06.2011 at the different premises of Dr. Anish Maru Group. It is observed by the Assessing Officer that no return of income was filed by the assessee within the time

prescribed and therefore a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. In response to this notice, the assessee had furnished his return of income on 21.02.2013 declaring

total income of Rs. 3,63,770/-. The assessee revised the return of income on 24.10.2013 at Rs. 2,63,760/-.

3.

Subsequently the assessment was made u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereby

Assessing Officer made on addition on account of undisclosed debtors of Rs.

47,78,300/-

4.

Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who

after considering the submissions and examined the report deleted the additions.

5.

Now the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6.

Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are against deleting additions of Rs. 47,78,300/- made

on account of undisclosed debtors.

7.

The ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additions. He submitted that the AO observed in Assessment Order that the contention of the assessee that the list of debtors was not updated found to be incorrect.

8.

On the contrary, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. He submitted that survey proceedings was conducted during which a list of debtors containing the name of person, vehicle number and the amount was found and inventorised as per annexure B1-1 page 1- 13 (PB 18-30). The total amount of debtors as per this list was Rs. 4,43,25,707/-

3 Trading Co. on 08.06.2011 in his handwriting. The survey party also took the printout of balance sheet of this concern as on 08.06.2011. As per the balance sheet, the amount of sundry debtors was Rs. 3,76,21,657/-. The Assessing Officer made query with regard to difference. In reply thereto, the assessee stated that the amounts shown in this list is future value of debtors and not the current value and for this reason there was a difference. He submitted during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was contended that list of debtors found on 08.06.2011 was not correct in view of the fact that in respect of certain parties where amount was reflected outstanding in fact, was recovered prior to 08.06.2011 and the loan which was not sanctioned after 08.06.2011 was also mentioned in that list. So, there was a factual error into that list. He submitted under this fact, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. He submitted that in the course of assessment proceedings, assessee vide letter dated 24.10.2013 submitted that outstanding debtors as on 08.06.2011 as mentioned in the list of outstanding debtors as per the books of account was of Rs. 4,46,52,320/-. On comparing these two lists of debtors, it can be noted that certain names were matching in both the lists but certain names were appearing only in the books of accounts. This was for the reason that the amount of debtors mentioned in the impounded list had been realised but the same was not incorporated in the impounded list and at the same time the amount so realised was utilized in giving fresh advances recorded in the books was also not incorporated in the impounded list. Hence, name wise comparison of the amount of debtors as per the impounded list with the outstanding debtors as per books as on 08.06.2011 was incorrect. Broadly the amount as per impounded list at Rs. 4,24,10,247/- was much lower than the outstanding debtors as per books at Rs. 4,46,52,320/-.

9.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material Order pronounced in the open court on 23/05/2017. (HkkxpUn½ (dqy Hkkjr) (BHAG CHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 23/05/2017. Ganesh Kumar आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

2.

The Respondent – Sh. Raj Kumar Maru, Jaipur

3.

The CIT(A).

4.

The CIT,

5.

The DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6.

Guard File (ITA No. 626/JP/2016) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →