IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `F' NEW DELHI)
BEFORE Shri G. D. AGGARWAL, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
And SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. Nos.4884, 4885, 4886, 5416, 4887, 5417 & 5418/Del/2010
(assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 &
2006-07 respectively)
DCIT, CC-23, Vs. M/s. Rama Krishna Jewellers,
New Delhi C/o M/s. RRA Taxindia,
D-28, South Extension, Part-I,
New Delhi
Cross Objection Nos.370, 371, 372, 373, 47, 48 & 49/Del/2011
(assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2003-04, 2005-06
& 2006-07 respectively)
M/s. Rama Krishna Jewellers, Vs. DCIT, CC-23,
C/o M/s. RRA Taxindia, New Delhi
D-28, South Extension, Part I,
New Delhi
ITA No. 15 / Del/ 2011
(Assessment Year 2007-08 )
M/s. Rama Krishna Jewellers, Vs. DCIT, CC-23,
C/o M/s. RRA Taxindia, New Delhi
D-28, South Extension, Part I,
New Delhi
PAN : AAEFR1351H
(Appellants) (Respondents)
Assessee by : Smt. Veena Joshi, CIT DR
Department by: Shri Ashwani Taneja, and Shri Rohan Khare, Adv.
ORDER
PER U B S BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These 15 matters comprise of 7 appeals of the department and equal
number of cross objections of the assessee against separate orders passed by
Ld. CIT(A) III dated 31.08.2010 for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02,
I.T.A. Nos. 4884,4885,4886,4887,5416,5417,5418
2 /DEL/2010
C.O. Nos.370,371,372,372,47,48,49/Del/2011
I.T.A. No. 15/Del/2011
2002-03 and 2004-05, and dated 08.09.2010 for assessment year 2003-04,
2005-06 & 2006-07 respectively along with another appeal of the assessee
against the order of CIT(A) XIII, New Delhi dated 16.11.2011 relevant to
assessment year 2007-08.
2. Since, these mattes were heard together and involve some common
issues, therefore, are being disposed off by a single order for the sake of
convenience.
3. So far as the appeal of the department and cross objection of the
assessee are concerned for assessment year 2000-01to 2006-07, it was, at the
very outset, submitted by the Ld. counsel for the assessee that appeals of the
department are mainly relatable to deletion of additions made u/s 68 and part
disallowance made by the A.O. on account of making charges paid to
karigars in different amounts besides challenge with regard to admission of
additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act whereas, in the cross
objections of the assessee, besides confirmation of disallowance of the
amounts of remuneration paid to Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary in these years,
there is another challenge with regard to part confirmation of various
disallowances. It was submitted that so far as deletion of addition under
section 68 and addition on account of 50% of making charges is concerned,
these amounts have been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of second
remand report obtained after admission of additional evidence in which the
A.O. has duly admitted the claim of the assessee. So, the appeals of the
revenue are not maintainable, which may be dismissed.
4. As regards cross objections of the assessee are concerned, Ld. counsel
for the assessee submitted that except challenging the confirmation of
remuneration paid to Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary in all these years, the assessee
does not want to press confirmation of various other different disallowances
in the cross objections. With respect to effective ground, it was submitted
I.T.A. Nos. 4884,4885,4886,4887,5416,5417,5418
3 /DEL/2010
C.O. Nos.370,371,372,372,47,48,49/Del/2011
I.T.A. No. 15/Del/2011
that firstly, addition has been made on the basis of statement recorded at the
time of search when no opportunity to cross examination was given to the
assessee and secondly, in assessment year 2009-10, where the assessment
was framed u/s 143(3) and such disallowance was made but deleted by Ld.
CIT(A) and by filing copy of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it was pleaded that
either the addition should be deleted or the matter should be restored back to
the file of the A.O. for reconsideration of the issue afresh as appropriate
opportunity has not been granted to the assessee by the A.O. in this regard.
5. Ld. D.R. has been heard who relied upon the order of the A.O. and
pleaded for setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and to restore that of the
A.O. It was pointed out that when all the additions have been made after
considering the second remand report of the A.O. who has duly
communicated about the genuineness of the transaction for which the
Department should not have any objection, on which she did not give any
appropriate reply.
6. After hearing both the sides, considering the material on record, we
find that in this case, search was conducted in the case of the assessee on
20.01.2006 when certain incriminating documents were seized.
Subsequently, notice u/s 153A of the I. T. Act, 1961 were issued requiring
the assessee to furnish the return of income for the current year as well as
last six years which was duly filed and after due notice o the assessee and
considering the reply, assessments were framed and certain additions were
made against which the assessee preferred appeals and Ld. CIT(A) gave
certain relief, against which, Department has come up in appeals and against
the additions sustained, assessee has filed cross objections. But at the time
of hearing of this matter, the assessee except contesting confirmation of the
additions of the amount of remuneration paid to Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary,
ground in relation to all other additions were not pressed and against the
I.T.A. Nos. 4884,4885,4886,4887,5416,5417,5418
4 /DEL/2010
C.O. Nos.370,371,372,372,47,48,49/Del/2011
I.T.A. No. 15/Del/2011
confirmation of addition on account of remuneration paid to Mrs. Mukta
Chaudhary for all these years, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee contended that
neither appropriate opportunity has been given nor cross examination of
Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary has been granted when additions have been made
considering the statement of Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary. It was contended for
deletion of addition for all these years in this regard or the matters should be
restored back to the file of the A.O. for redeciding the same afresh.
6.1 We, after having considered the facts, circumstances of the case and
material on record, find it just and appropriate to uphold the order of Ld.
CIT(A) with respect to the additions made and to the extent sustained by the
Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of second remand report in which the A.O. has
agreed with the material submitted by the assessee to the Ld. CIT(A), which
were sent to the A.O. So, the appeals of the department are dismissed.
6.2 So far as cross objections of the assessee are concerned, considering
the rival submissions, we find it just and appropriate to set aside the orders
of authorities below in respect to additions made on account of remuneration
paid to Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the
issue to the file of the A.O. for reconsideration of the same afresh after
giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct
accordingly.
6.3 As a result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas, cross
objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
7. As regards the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08
is concerned, challenge is with regard to confirmation of the order of the
A.O. in disallowing sum of Rs.2.40 lacs on account of remuneration paid to
Smt. Mukta Chaudhary, partner of the assessee firm and challenge is also
about charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B. Since the first issue is similar
to the issue in cross objections allowed by us, in earlier part of this order
I.T.A. Nos. 4884,4885,4886,4887,5416,5417,5418
5 /DEL/2010
C.O. Nos.370,371,372,372,47,48,49/Del/2011
I.T.A. No. 15/Del/2011
while disposing off the appeals of the department and cross objections of the
assessee, so adopting the same basis and reasoning, we set aside the orders
of authorities below on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of
the A.O. for redeciding the issue afresh as per directions given in the group
cases above. As regards the issue in relation to confirmation of charging of
interest u/s 2343A and 234B is concerned, the same is mandatory and
consequential and the A.O. will consider the same while passing the order
with regard to the issue restored back to his file and determine the same
accordingly being mandatory and consequential.
7.1 As a result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 the
same is allowed partly for statistical purposes.
8. As a result, appeals of the department for all the years are dismissed
whereas, the cross objections of the assessee are treated to have been
allowed partly for statistical purpose. The appeal of the assessee for the
assessment year 2007-08 is allowed partly for statistical purpose.
9. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.11.2013.
Sd./- Sd./-
(G.D. AGGARWAL) (U.B.S.BEDI)
Vice President Judicial Member
Date: 01st Nov., 2013.
Sp.
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi AR, ITAT,
5. CIT(ITAT), New Delhi NEW DELHI
|
No comments:
Post a Comment