Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI
आदेश /O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi dated 22.09.2020 for AY 2012-13.
The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to press legal ground nos. 1 to 4, hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed. The ground no. 8 of assessee is of general in nature.
Remaining effective ground nos. 5, 6 and 7 read as follows: -
5. “Because the action is being challenged since the addition of Rs.10,79,562/- has been made without making proper investigation from the other party whereby assessee has discharged the onus by providing all relevant documents.
I.T.A.No.1803/Del/2020
Because the action is under challenge on facts & law whereby addition Rs.10,79,562/- has been made without examining the merits of documents and the provisions of Sales of Goods Act 1930 regarding delivery of goods and consideration under the Indian Contract Act 1872.
7. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law from making addition of Rs.12,554/- as commissioner paid.” 3. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the authorities below have made addition in the hands of the assessee of Rs.10,79,562/- without having provided cross-examination of the person whose statement was relied for making addition in the hands of the assessee, despite various requests and such denial is violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, addition cannot be held as sustainable.
The Ld. AR also submitted that the addition has been made in the hands of the assessee without examining the merits of the documents and the provisions of sales of Goods Act, 1930 regarding delivery of goods and consideration under Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Ld. AR drawing our attention towards page 36 of assessee paper book submitted that the assessee submitted entire details regarding sale of Animal Food to M/s Raghubir Singh Devinder Kumar and also submitted details of invoices and payment received through HDFC Bank but these details were kept aside by the Assessing Officer and addition has been made in the hands of the assessee which is clearly baseless, therefore, the same may kindly be deleted. The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble
I.T.A.No.1803/Del/2020 Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur in the case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP).
Replying to the above, the Ld. DR strongly supported the merits of the addition and others of the authorities below.
6. On careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below and documents placed by the assessee at pages 36 to 59 of the Paper Book, I find that the assessee submitted ledger account, sale invoices, weighment slip, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways showing check status and bank statement showing receipts of sale consideration from sales made to M/s Raghubir Singh Devinder Kumar from documents available at pages 60 to 67. I also note that the assessee has submitted copy of Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal dated 20.11.2012 for AY 2011-12 passed under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. These documents particularly ledger account (page 36) clearly reveals the sale transaction undertaken by the assessee with purchaser M/s Raghubir Singh Devinder Kumar during 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 which shows that the assessee has made sales and has received sale consideration through banking channels from purchaser M/s Raghubir Singh Devinder Kumar, Delhi. These documents were submitted by the assessee before the authorities below but neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) considered and appreciated this most relevant documentary evidence in a judicious manner. Copies of documents
I.T.A.No.1803/Del/2020 available at pages 36 to 59 and VAT order and dilly stock account as per excise records available at pages 60 to 67 clearly reveals that the all transactions of sales undertaken by the assessee were properly vouched, recorded in the books of accounts and sale consideration was received through banking channel. Therefore, in absence of any findings of the AO controverting or demolishing the genuineness of self speaking documentary evidence filed by the assessee during assessment and first appellant proceedings as discussed above (Pages 36 to 67 of APB), the findings recorded by the AO in para 5 of assessment order are clearly perverse and based only on surmises and conjectures which cannot be held as sustainable and valid. Accordingly, grounds of assessee on merits are allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/03/2023