IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES `SMC' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
ITA No. 1214/Chd/2011
Assessment Year: 2007-08
M/s Verma Plywood Industries, Vs The ITO, Ward 5(1),
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. AAFCA3941C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Shri Krishan Mangawa
Respondent By : Shri Akhilesh Gupta
Date of hearing : 26.06.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2012
ORDER
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of
CIT(A), Chandigarh dated 13.10.2011 relating to assessment year 2007-08.
2. In this appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds:-
1. a) That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding
the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
b) That without prejudice to above, the appellant
disputes the quantum of addition.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the
addition of Rs. 3 lacs on the basis that the said addition
was agreed addition.
2
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not deciding the
appeal on merits and the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set
aside.
4. That the appellant craves leave for any addition,
deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or
before the disposal of the same.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a
manufacturing concern and manufacturing plywood / plyboard. For the
assessment year 2007-08, the assessee firm filed its return of income
declaring total income at Rs. 84,030/- on 31.10.2007, which was processed
u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 13.3.2009.
The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on
26.9.2008. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on
15.4.2009. Again notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 4.6.2009 on the
change of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer found certain
discrepancies in the books of account of assessee and Shri Neeraj Jain, CA,
Ld. Counsel for the assessee agreed for an addition of Rs. 3 lacs subject to
no penalty to cover up any discrepancy in the books of account. Thus an
addition of Rs. 3 lacs was made to the income of the assessee.
4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the
matter in appeal before the CIT(A).
5. The CIT(A) dismis sed the appeal of the assessee observing as under:-
3
2.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld.
counsel for the appellant has submitted that no
discrepancy was found in the books of account, but the
appellant agreed for the addition, subject to no penalty,
but the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty
proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.4 I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel for
the appellant. The Ld. Counsel cannot contest the
addition because it was an agreed addition. The
addition made by the Assessing Officer is accordingly
confirmed. Ground of appeal No.1 is dismissed."
6. I have heard the rival submis sions and have also perused the materials
available on record. It is apparent from the order of the Assessing Officer
that the authorized representative of the assessee Shri Neeraj Jain, CA
appeared before the Assessing Officer and agreed to the addition of Rs.
3,00,000/-. It means the that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee accepted that
there were certain discrepancies in the books of account of the assessee. As
per paras 2.3 and 2.4 of the impugned order also, it is clear that during the
appellate proceedings, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not controvert
the findings of the Assessing Officer. In my considered opinion, the orders
passed by the lower authorities on an agreement can not give rise to the
grievances and the same cannot be agitated in appeal before the Tribunal.
The view taken by me is duly s upported by following judgments:-
i) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v CIT, Patiala (1980) 125 ITR 239(P &H)
ii) Jivatlal Purtapshi v CIT, Bombay (1967) 65 ITR 261 (Bom)
4
7. In my opinion, the assessee agreed to the impugned addition before
both the authorities below, therefore, cannot be held to be aggrieved by these
orders. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee regarding deletion of addition
is neither competent nor capable of being entertained by the Tribunal. In
view of the above discussion, I dismis s the appeal of the assessee.
8 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 27 t h June, 2012.
Sd/-
(H.L.KARWA)
VI CE PRESIDENT
Dated : 27 t h June, 2012
Rkk
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR
True Copy
By Order
Assistant Registrar
|
