Non-disclosure of amount in the balance of loans and advances (sec 154 for making such addition is not postulated)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH `F’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

AND

SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A.No.474/Del/2013

Assessment Year: 2005-06

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Central Circle-18, Room No.327,

3rd Floor, ARA Centre, E-2,

Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi.

(Appellant)

Vs

M/s Pooja International Pvt.Ltd.,

7, South Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008

(Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar, Sr.DR

Respondent by: S/Sh. Salil Aggarwal/Shailaesh Gupta

O R D E R

PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-III, New Delhi dated 1.11.2012 in Appeal No. 619/11-12/C.I.T.(A)-III for AY 2005-06.

2. Ground no. 2 and 3 of the revenue are general in nature which need no adjudication. Remaining sole ground of the revenue reads as under:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the  addition of Rs.1,62,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of non-disclosure of this amount in the balance of loans and advances.”

3. At the outset of argument, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted a copy of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 passed in ITA No.84/2013 wherein it has been held as under:-

“4. The tribunal has also rightly observed that in cases of debatable or contestable issues, resort to section 154 is not postulated and acceptable. Resort to section 154 of the Act, to make addition of Rs.1,62,00,000/- was improper and contrary to law.

5. The present appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. We also record tha the Revenue has not filed on record, copy of 45 pages but they were produced before us by the counsel for the assessee and these papers were shown to the counsel for the Revenue.”

4. In view of above, we observe that the Hon’ble High Court has clearly held that the addition of Rs.1,62,00,000 was improper and contrary to law and resort to section 154 of the Act for making such addition is not postulated and acceptable. In view of above observation of Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case for the same assessment year, sole ground of the revenue does not survive and the same deserves to be dismissed and we dismiss the same.

5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Decision pronounced in the open court on 08.08.13.

Sd/- Sd/-

(B.C. MEENA) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 8th AUGUST 2013

‘GS’

Copy forwarded to:-

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT (A)

4. CIT

5. DR

By Order

Deputy Registrar