Ita/101/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Associated Cashew Industries

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935 ITA.No. 101 of 2013 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 391/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 16-11-2012 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ---------------------------- M/S. ASSOCIATED CASHEW INDUSTRIES CHANDANANTHOPE, KOLLAM 691 014. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A. No. 101 OF 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6[th] day of October, 2013 Manjula Chellur, C.J. JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 16.11.12, so far as setting asideaddition of 41,23,951/- as income. According to the assessee,₹this amount represent advances received by the assessee but hehas repaid the said amount to various parties by way of cash onvarious dates and those details are reflected in the books ofaccounts. The assessing officer was of the opinion there was noevidence to show that the amount withdrawn from the books bydebiting the said amounts to the account of various parties,therefore, it has to be treated as income of the assessee. 2. Aggrieved by this when the matter went up beforeCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first appellateauthority accepted the contention of the assessee and deletedthe said addition of 41,23,951/-. Aggrieved by the same,₹revenue approached the Tribunal. Tribunal after perusal of theassessment order was justified in saying that the assessingofficer did not suspect the receipt of the advances which wereshown as advances from various parties. There is consistent ITA No. 101 of 2013 -:2:- stand of the assessee that when they were not able to supplyrequired quality of cashew nuts, they have to return theadvances. 3. When once withdrawals are made from the books ofaccounts showing the said amounts as refund of advances to theparties by debiting it to their respective accounts, we are of theopinion, the CIT(appeals) as well as Tribunal were justified inopining that the assessing officer was wrong in adding thisamount as income in the hands of the assessee. Revenue isunable to place on record any material indicating that theseamounts were not reflected properly so far as refund of the saidamounts. In the light of the observation of both the appellate authorities, we find no good reason to interfere with the same.Accordingly the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice. A.M. Shaffique, Judge. ITA No. 101 of 2013