9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment proceedings - no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition - appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 2928/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 25-5-2012 - SHRI A.D. JAIN, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Assessee by : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Department by : S h. R.S. Negi, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXII, New Delhi dated 15.3.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- The Assessing Officer, Ward 21(1), New Delhi is hereby directed to file an appeal in the above mentioned case before the ITAT, New Delhi on the following grounds of appeal: i) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of a total amount of Rs. 20,06,556/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without cogent reasons in accepting the plea of the appellant that these cash credits were opening balance in spite of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notices were received back unserved, with the postal authorities stating that no such parties existed at the addresses, or that the address was incomplete. In five cases, no reply was received. Two parties replied that there was no balance outstanding in their books of account. The assessee also failed to produce confirmations of six of the creditors. Hence, after issuing a show cause notice to the assessee, the Assessing Officer made the following additions of credit balances. 1) M/s Aqsa Trading Co. for non-submission of confirmation - Rs. 60,177/-. 2) M/s Chander Metal Store as notice u/s. 133(6) was returned unserved, and the appellant s claim of advance received for supply of materials, but returned back in later year, was not supported by details of bank, cheque, etc. - Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3) M/s Grover Electronics, as the creditor denied any outstanding balance - Rs. 14,400/-. 4) M/s Hanuman Engineering Works as the appellant s claim of advance received for supply of materials, and returned in a later year was not supported by bank details - Rs. 50,000/-. 5) M/s Mohan Metals Store as no details of transaction were provided apart from claim that debit note was pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax (Appeals) held that in his opinion addition could not have been made u/s. 68 of those amounts which appear as opening balances on 1.4.2006, which were as follows:- 1) Shree Kripa Electrical and Engineering Co. In this case the appellant has had business dealings since the F.Y. 2004-05. The appellant s books have an opening balance of Rs. 7,81,950/- as on 1.4.2006, out of advances received vide three cheque amounts in F.Y. 2005-06. After payment of Rs. 35,950/- by the appellant during the year, the closing balance is Rs. 7,46,000/-. 2) M/s Hitech Enterprises During the F.Y. 2004-05, the appellant has received advances amounting to Rs. 20,58,500/- and made sales of Rs. 8,98,343/-. Out of the opening balance of Rs. 11,60,156/- on 1.4.2006, the appellant has paid back an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- during the year, and the closing balance is Rs. 10,60,156/-. This amount was settled through supply of material in the F.Y. 2009-10. 3) M/s Aqsa Trading Co. Out of the opening balance on 1.4.2006 of Rs. 1,20,177/- the appellant has paid Rs. 60,000/- during the year, and the closing balance is Rs. 60,177/-. This amount was then repaid in the F.Y. 2008-09. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that despite objection by the Assessing Officer in the remand report, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has proceeded to delete the additions. He submitted that the additions were proper and Assessing Officer s order needs to be upheld. 6.1 Ld. counsel of the assessee on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and submitted that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted the additions, after examining and verifying the necessary documents and evidences. Ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted case laws for the proposition that no addition can be made u/s. 68 in cases where the closing credit balance pertain to opening balance only. - Decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Prameshwar Bohra (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Raj). - Decision of Mumbai ITAT dated 30.9.2011 in the case of Chandramohan C. Tipnis vs. ITO 2012-TIOL-06-ITATMUM. - Decision of Mumbai ITAT dated 30.11.2011 in ITO vs. Shri Nasir Khan J. Mahadik in ITA No. 153/Mum/2010. - Decision of Third Member Bench of ITAT in the case of Baldev Krishan Kapoor vs. ACIT 66 ITD 37 (TM). 6.2 Ld. counsel further placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
