Sushma Bansal, Alwar vs Department Of Income Tax

Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] yscL; ds le{k (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R.MEENA) M.A. No.14/JP/2014 (A/o ITA No.445/JP/13) Assessment Year : 2007-08 PAN : ACOPB 3831C

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Smt.Sushma Bansal, Alwar. Bharatpur. vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

foHkkx dh vksj ls@Department by : Smt.Neena Zeph (JCIT) fu/kkZfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh.Rajendra Agarwal, (CA)

lquokbZ dh frfFk@Date of Hearing : 10.04.2015 ?kks"k.kk dh frfFk@Date of Pronouncemtnt: 10.04.2015

vkns'k ORDER

PER T.R.MEENA, AM:-

The revenue as filed M.A. against the ITAT order in ITA No.445/JP/13 for

A.Y.2008-09 order dated 26.02.2014 on 10.06.2014 stating as under :-

"5. That the appeal so filed by the assessee was decided by Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in favour of the appellant vide ITA No.445/JP/2013 dated 26.02.2014. Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the assessee appeal on the ground that the assessee has furnished ,e-,-la-14@tsih@14&Jherh lq"kek caly] Hkjriqj A

- 2-

the require details regarding freight expenses during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO wherein bill no., date of payment, vehicle no. and amount has been mentioned. The assessment order passed by the AO could not be subject to revision u/s 263 of the Act, on the issue, on which the AO had applied his mind and accepted the claim after proper verification.

6. That in Para 8 of the order it has been observed by the Hon'ble ITAT that "The details furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer are placed at page Nos. 5 to 15 of the assessee's paper book, wherein bill no. date of payment, vehicle no. and the amount has been mentioned."

Whereas, as per the facts of the case, it is submitted that the assessee has not furnished the requisite details i.e. party wise details of freight payment, name of the persons/parties and complete address to whom payment of freight was made and their confirmations and truck number etc, which were required for verification/examination and further ascertaining the party-wise freight payment and liability in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, 1961, before the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. Whereas, in contrary thereto, the A/R has wrongly claimed before the Hon'ble ITAT to have the details submitted and got the books of accounts verified by the AO.

Thus, it appears that the A/R of the assessee has misled the facts and wrongly submitted submitted before the Hon'ble ITAT that the assessee has filed details of bill no., date of payment, vehicle no. and amount before the completion of assessment on 15.12.2010, whereas it was filed on 05.12.2011 (Copy enclosed) after the completion of the assessment u/s 143(3) on 15.10.2010.

7. That as per the facts of the case, as submitted above, an error has crept in the order of Hon'ble ITAT in Para 8, where it has been held that "the assessment order passed by the AO could not be subject to revision under section 263 of the Act, on the issue, on which, the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and accepted the claim after proper verification."

,e-,-la-14@tsih@14&Jherh lq"kek caly] Hkjriqj A

- 3-

2. The Ld. CIT, Alwar requested therefore it is a apparent mistake in the order

of the Hon'ble ITAT.

3. The Ld.A.R. Sh.Rajendra Agarwal, C.A. argued that details mentioned by

the Hon'ble ITAT at page 4 in paragraph no. 4 that the assessee has filed the detail

of bill & voucher in request to the freight expenses of Rs.68,98,630/- during the

course of hearing before the AO vide letter dated 15.10.2010 which has been

considered by the A.O. & Hon'ble ITAT as considered these evidences at the time

of delivering the decision in case of assessee on set-asiding the order of the

Ld.CIT, Alwar u/s 263 of the IT Act. Therefore there is no apparent mistake to

rectify the Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 26.02.2014 in case of assessee. Thus he

requested to dismiss the M.A. petition of revenue.

4. We have heard the rival submission of both the parties and perused the

material available on record. We find favour of the assessee on this issue that

assessee had furnished the details of freight expenses before the A.O. Therefore

there is no apparent mistake in the order of this Bench at 26.02.2014 for A.Y.

2008-09.

,e-,-la-14@tsih@14&Jherh lq"kek caly] Hkjriqj A

- 4-

5. Accordingly we dismissed the M.A. petition filed by the revenue.

Order pronounced in open court on 10.04.2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R.MEENA) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

t;iqj@Jaipur, fnukad@Date : 10/04/2015

*Basant*

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs "kr@Copy of the order forwarded to :-

1- vk;dj vk;qDr] vyoj@The CIT, Alwar. 2- Jherh lq"kek caly] Hkjriqj@Smt.Sushma Bansal, Bharatpur. 3- foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] t;iqj@The D.R. ITAT, Jaipur 4- xkMZ QkbZy@The Guard File (in M.A. No.14/JP/2014)

vkns'kkuqlkj By Order

lgk;d iathdkj@Assistant Registrar