Sai Lubricants Pvt. LTd., H-25, South Extn.-1, New Delhi-110049 Vs ITO, Ward-7(2), New Delhi.
January, 20th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `G' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SH. B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2007-08)
Sai Lubricants Pvt. LTd., vs ITO,
H-25, South Extn.-1, New Delhi-110049 Ward-7(2),
PAN-AABCS5879D New Delhi.
Appellant by Sh. Mohit Sachdeva, Adv.
Respondent by Sh.Satpal Singh, Sr. DR
PER DIVA SINGH, JM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.11.2012 of
CIT(A)-X, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year. The relevant facts
of the case are that the assessee returned an income of Rs. 28,580/- vide his return
dated 15.11.2007 however the same was selected for scrutiny in response to notice
issued u/s 143(2) etc. initially the assessee was represented through his Advocate
however subsequently no one appeared. As a result thereof the assessment was
concluded at an income of Rs.11,96,378/- u/s 144/143 of the Act.
In appeal before the First Appellate Authority the addition of Rs.95,000/-
shown as unsecured loan; in regard to which no details for the loans was provided
before the AO and the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loan from Ms. Usha
Jain wherein also confirmations, identity and creditworthiness of the said persons
were not provided. The additions were confirmed holding that there is no
justification for the assessee to provide any confirmation or details at this stage
since the documents were not provided before the AO. In the said background
considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in
which the additions were made and confirmed it is seen that the specific
2 I.T.A .No.-347/Del/2013
explanation of the assessee before the CIT(A) shows that following submissions
4. "That the Ld. Assessing Officer has also erred in adding back
Rs.95,000/- on account non disclsorue during the assessment proceeding.
The said loans were taken from Sh.Om Parkash Aggarwal, Manju Luthra,
Harbajan Singh, Radha Krishan and Meenu were duly recorded in the books
of accounts and reflected in the audited balance sheet of the appellant. The
contention of the Ld. AO regarding non discloser is not correct and uncalled
for. ON same grounds addition of Rs.200,000/- was made without seen that it
was returns to Miss. Usha Jain during the same financial year duly recorded
in the books of accounts. Confirmation of all the above are also enclosed for
2. In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate in
the interests of substantial justice to restore the issue back to the AO with the
direction to take fresh evidence on record and decide the issue by way of a
speaking order. The Ld. AR undertakes that the opportunities so provided shall
not be wasted by the assessee as the discretion so exercised in the interests of
substantial justice should not be abused.
3. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 19th of January 2015.
(B.C.MEENA) (DIVA SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Copy forwarded to:
5. DR: ITAT
ITAT NEW DELHI