NEW VIDEO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2956/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 December 2016AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds related to penalty proceedings as premature. For the addition of unconfirmed sundry creditors, the Tribunal directed verification by the AO regarding the assessee's claim of subsequent write-off and offering to tax.

What were the facts?

The assessee is in appeal against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made by the AO on account of unconfirmed sundry creditors. The assessee also contested penalty proceedings under sections 269SS and 271D.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings under Section 271D are appealable at the initiation stage. Whether additions for unconfirmed sundry creditors are justified when the assessee claims subsequent write-off and taxation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 271D,Section 40A(2)(b),Section 43B,Section 40(a)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 27/09/2016Pronounced: 16/12/2016

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. These are the cross appeals filed by the parties against the order of the ld 1. CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi dated 12.01.2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

1. The learned C1T(A) has erred in law and on facts and under the circumstances of the case by invoking section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Page 2 of 3 2. The learned C!T(A) has erred in law and on facts by invoking the penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by learned assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 29,14,046/- on account of alleged un-confirmed balances of sundry creditors.

4.

The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts and under the circumstances of the case by not allowing alleged un evidenced payments of Rs. 52,857/- and Rs. 2,80,305/- made under section 43B and 40(a](i) of the Income Tax. Whereas learned CIT (A) has rejected the plea of the assessee company due to non production of evidences.”

3.

The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in disallowance of Rs. 64,22,436/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, 1961.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing a relief of Rs. 2164518/- out of disallowance of Rs. 5078564/- made by the AO on account of unconfimed balances of sundry creditors.”

4. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are against the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 269SS read with section 271D of the Act. Both these grounds are premature as mere initiation of penalty proceedings the assessee is not aggrieved, he will have the full opportunity to explain his case therefore ground Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed.

5. Ground No. 3 of the appeal is with respect to addition of Rs. 29140461/- alleged unconfirmed balance of sundry creditors. The brief facts of the issue is that an amount of Rs. 2914046/- was outstanding of the creditors for many years for which the assessee could not profit the confirmation. The assessee has submitted before the AO to issue summons or conduct enquiry u/s 133(6). The amount of advance includes 2914046/- of M/s. Supra Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd of Dubai. The same outstanding of that party was Rs. 2489429/- and therefore in absence of complete postal address and confirmation the addition of Rs. 2914046/- was made. The above addition was contested before the ld CIT(A) who confirmed the addition and therefore the assessee is in appeal before us.

6. The ld AR submitted that amount of creditors of Rs. 2914046/- have also been paid or write off by the appellant during FY 2009-10 and 2011-12 and has been offered to the income for taxation in those respective years. He submitted this details with the with the prayer for admission of additional evidence on such write back. He pleaded that for this issue the matter may

More judgments on Section 269SS

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 269SS →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →