Ita/44/2013 Of M/S.george Metals 9/568 Sujatha Complex v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thrissur

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 THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/18TH ASWINA, 1935 ITA.No. 44 of 2013 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 73//Coch/2012 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 07-12-2012 ............... APPELLANT/APPELLANT :----------------------------- M/S.GEORGE METALS, 9/568, SUJATHA COMPLEX, S.T.NAGAR NEAR HEART HOSPITAL, THRISSUR-680 001. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT : ---------------------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 44 of 2013 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. INCOME TAX. ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. TRIBUNAL. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A. No. 44 OF 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2013 Manjula Chellur, C.J. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal which isimpugned before us. 2. The appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business in Iron and Steel items at Thrissur. For theassessment year 2008-09 return of income was filed andhowever the case was selected for scrutiny. By adding a lumpsum addition of `22 lakhs, the assessment came to becompleted and said additions came to be made on the groundthat the assessee has accounted cash advances on variousdates but on certain specified dates, it did not have sufficientcash in the books to meet the expenses. 3. This opinion of the assessing authority came tobe challenged before the first appellate authority-Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wherein certain ITA No. 44 of 2013 -:2:- additional material came to be produced by the assessee insupport of its contention that there was facility of bank credit,therefore there was enough funds at the disposal of the appellantassessee. The appeal came to be allowed by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The revenue, challenging the said order of the first appellate authority, approached the Tribunal and the Tribunalreferring to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act opined that genuinesales advances cannot be added and observed that the assessingofficer must apply his mind to the said explanation given by theassessee and proceeded with the matter afresh by remanding thematter back to the assessing officer concerned. Aggrieved by thesame, the assessee is before us. 5. So far as opinion of the Tribunal, if there aregenuine sale advances available to the assessee, whether suchgenuine sale advances as claimed by the assessee was inexistence or not is a question of fact that has to be gone into byverification of records submitted by the assessee. In order tohave this factual situation clarified by way of affording an opportunity to the assessee, the Tribunal was of the opinion, theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserves tobe set aside so as to allow the assessing officer to appreciate theentire issue afresh taking into consideration the materialsubmitted by the assessee in support of their contentions so faras sales advances with reference to Section 68 of the Act. We find no illegality so far as the opinion of the opportunity to the assessee, the Tribunal was of the opinion, theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserves tobe set aside so as to allow the assessing officer to appreciate theentire issue afresh taking into consideration the materialsubmitted by the assessee in support of their contentions so faras sales advances with reference to Section 68 of the Act. We find no illegality so far as the opinion of the Tribunal and in the absence of any substantial question of lawbeing raised, we are of the opinion, none of the grounds raised inthe appeal are sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice. A.M. Shaffique, Judge. ttb/10/10