M/S. MANGAT RICE & GENERAL MILLS,,SHAHKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the terms aforesaid
ITA 474/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Dec 2018AY 2007-08
Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.474/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mangat Rice & General Vs. Ito, Nakodar. Mills, Shahkot. Pan: Aabfm 5282B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Gaurav Dhall, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 23.05.2017, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08 Vide Order Dated 14.12.2009. 2. The Principal Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Maintainability In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of An Addition For Rs.4.39 Lacs Sustained By The First Appellate Authority. The Background Facts Are That The Assessee, A Partnership Firm In The Business Of Rice Milling, Filed Its’ Return Of Income For The Year On 18.03.2008 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. It’S Trade Debtors & Trade Creditors, Reflected At Rs.9.42 Lacs & Rs.32.18 Lacs Respectively As At The Year-End, I.E., 31.03.2007, Per Its Final Accounts, Were Sought To Be Verified By The 2 Mangat Rice & General Mills V. Ito Assessing Officer (Ao) By Calling Information There-From U/S.133(6) Of The Act. The Dispute Under Reference Pertains To Two Creditors, As Under: (A) Jai Ram Jagdish Chandra, Mehatpur (Jrjc) : Rs.6,03,837.83 (B) Sohan Singh Satpal, Mehatpur (Sss) : Rs.8,38,871.58
For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Dhall, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Das, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 131oSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)
capital, had booked their own money as cash received from the assessee. That is, the entries of cash received from the assessee in their accounts are false, and no adverse consequence on that basis should follow. On being questioned by the Bench that, assuming so, so that section 69A may not apply, how would section 41(1), also invoked
