PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 604/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 June 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the case to the AO for verification of new evidences submitted by the assessee. The AO is directed to examine and decide the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

A survey was conducted on the assessee, and impounded documents contained entries aggregating to Rs. 19,54,500/-. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or substantiating evidence for these entries.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 69C based on impounded loose sheets is sustainable without proper verification of new evidences submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 133A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Arivind Kumar, D.R
Hearing: 17.06.2019Pronounced: 25.06.2019

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.04.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.19,54,500/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Act based upon the impounded material during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act.

2 M/s. Pankaj Enterprises 3. The facts in brief are that a survey was conducted on the assessee on 21.11.2012 at the business premises of the assessee and some documents, loose papers were found and impounded in which various entries were found to be recorded, the details whereof are given at para 5.3 of the assessment order aggregating to Rs.19,54,500/- which could not be explained satisfactorily by the assessee and finally the same were added to the income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act by framing assessment under section 143(3) dated 30.03.2015.

4.

In the appellate proceedings also the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO after taking the submissions and contentions of the assessee by holding as under: “5.3 I have duly considered the submissions made by the appellant and the facts found by AO in the assessment order Shri Suresh Patel has submitted during the appellate proceedings that these impounded documents contained rough notings and were not on regular books of accounts. Certain expenditures were of capital nature and duly reflected in the books of accounts of the concerns. The impounded documents contained expenditure as well as receipts. However, Shri Suresh Patel, who is also a partner of the firm, failed to produce evidences to substantiate the claim that all the incomes and expenses were incurred out of explained sources. In view of lack of any such proof being produced even in appellate proceedings, no fault can be found in the findings recorded in the assessment order. Ground Nos.1 to 3 stand rejected.”

5.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on the assessee and the AO has made addition of Rs. 19,54,500/-on the basis of notings in the loose sheets as found during the survey which were stated to be in respect of cash receipts and expenses. The ld CIT(A) also affirmed the order of AO on the ground that no details or evidences were produced in the appellant proceedings to substantiate that incomes and expenses were out of explained sources. The assessee has furnished various evidences before us which in our opinion

3 M/s. Pankaj Enterprises needs verification at the level of AO and therefore the case is restored to the file of the AO with the direction to examine and decide the same as per facts and law after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2019.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →