Excel for
Chartered Accountants

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES : “E”, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A.No. 6312/DEL/2013
A.Y. 2009-10

ITO, Ward 35(1) Room no.217 D Block, Vikas Bhawan New Delhi 110 022 (Appellant)
Vs.
Smt.Mamta Gupta, Prop. M/s Mamta Steels, 3-D, MIG Flats, Shivan Enclave, Delhi 110 095 (Respondent)

Assessee by : None.
Department by : S h. B.Dhamkanunjna, Sr.DR

ORDER

PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) –XXVII, New Delhi dated 18.9.2013 pertaining to the A.Y. 2009-10, on the following grounds.

1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and not consonance with facts of the case."

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,49,549/- by the A.O. on account of unproved credits."

3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidence filed before him by the assessee."

4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the objection of the A.O. with regard to admission of additional evidence not produced before A.O. during the assessment proceedings."

5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the above objection raised by the A.O. while submitting his remand report."

6. "The appellant craves leave to add, allow or amend/any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of appeal."

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice by registered post. There is no adjournment application either. Under the circumstances we dispose of the case ex parte qua the assessee on merits after hearing the Ld.D.R.

3. Heard Shri P.Dhamkanunja, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue.

4. The assessee is a trader in steel and the return of income was filed on 9.9.2009 declaring an income of Rs.6,29,040/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 24.12.2011 after adding Rs.1,41,49,549/- u/s 68 of the Act as confirmation from sundry creditors were not filed and also after adding Rs.6,16,872/- being the unexplained capital introduced by the assessee during the relevant A.Y. Aggrieved the assessee went in appeal before the First Appellate Authority wherein he got part relief. Aggrived the Revenue is in appeal before us.

5. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, on perusal of material on record, orders of the authorities below, case laws cited, we hold as follows.

6 . Ground no.1 is general in nature.

7 . Ground no.2 pertains to an addition of Rs.1,41,49,549/- deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). The list of the credits in question are at page 4 of the Ld.CIT(A)’s order. The assessee had pleaded before the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to file confirmations from sundry creditors and to file copy of the capital account and to explain the sources of capital. The Ld.CIT(A) admitted additional evidences and called for the remand report from the A.O. In the remand report, which is extracted in pages 4 and 5 of the Ld.CIT(A)’s order, the A.O. had sated as follows “Now on the basis of details/documents provided either by the assessee or the creditor parties, it appears that the sundry creditors are genuine and presently existing at the address given above.” In view of such finding by the A.O. the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition. We find no infirmity in the same. Ground no.2 of the Revenue is dismissed.

8. Ground nos. 3 and 4 are on the issue of admission of additional evidence. The Ld.CIT(A) admitted additional evidence for the reason that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to submit the required details. Under the circumstances we find no infirmity in the order of the First Appellate Authority.

8.1. In the result these two grounds are dismissed.

9. Ground no.5 is on the objection raised by the assessee in the remand report. The addition was deleted based on the finding of the A.O. Under these circumstances this ground is to be dismissed.

10. In the result the appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd June, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[I.C. SUDHIR] [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dt. the 22nd June, 2015

ITAT-Additional Evidence Admitted by CIT-A and Remand Report Called from Assessing Officer Justified for Inadequate Opportunity given to Assessee | 25-06-2015 |