Sh. Padam Chand Jain(HUF), Shivpuri V. ACIT, Gwalior

CO 8/AGR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4586 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVIN GARGH

Judgement Text

1 ITA 609-08 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH : AGRA. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI P.K. BANSAL ) ITA NO. 609/AG./2008 ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03. THE ACIT, RANGE-III, VS. SHRI PADAM CHAND JAIN ( HUF), GWALIOR. A.B. ROAD, SHIVPURI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 08/AG/2008 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 609/AG/2008) ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03. SHRI PADAM CHAND JAIN (HUF), VS. THE ACIT, RANGE-I II, SHIVPURI. GWALIOR. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.C. SHARMA, JR. D/R ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAVIN GARGH, ADVOCATE ORDER PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE SAM E IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. IN APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT IS O BJECTING VARIOUS ADDITIONS DELETED BY LD. CIT (A). THESE ADDITIONS DELETED BY LD. CIT (A) ARE OF RS. 41,793/- UNDER THE HEAD 2 OIL ACCOUNT, OF RS. 1,12,673/- AND RS. 4,95,747/- U NDER THE HEAD PETROL AND DIESEL ACCOUNT, OF RS. 39,998/- OUT OF SALARY, OF RS. 68,8 71/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN HOTEL RECEIPTS AND RS. 20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN SALARY IN VALLABH BHAWAN TRADING ACCOUNT. 4. THESE ADDITIONS DELETED BY LD. CIT (A) WERE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE AUDIT REPORT PREPARED ORIGINALLY AND THEREAFTER A REVISED AUDIT REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE AUDITORS. THE REASONS F OR REVISION OF TAX AUDIT REPORT WERE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS EXP LAINED THAT ORIGINALLY WHEN THE AUDIT REPORT WAS PREPARED SOME OF THE EXPENSES WERE NOT T AKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, EITHER THEY WERE SHOWN MORE OR THEY WERE SHOWN LESS. ACCORDING LY, A REVISED AUDIT REPORT WAS PREPARED AND WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE TALLIED WITH THE REVISED AUDIT REPORT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AUDIT REPORT AND THE REVISED AUDIT REPORT WERE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHATEVER THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE WAS THERE, THAT WAS ADDED TO T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISALLOWING THE RESPECTIVE EXPENSES AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT SOME MIST AKES WERE CREPT IN WHILE POSTING ENTRIES IN LEDGER OF WRONG HEADS, BUT THE MISTAKES WERE COMPENSATORY IN NATURE, THEREFORE, THE IMPACT OF THOSE MISTAKES UPON NET PR OFIT WAS NIL. THE NATURE OF ERRORS HAS BEEN VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED BY TAX AUDITOR AS COMPE NSATORY AS MENTIONED IN THE LAST PARA OF REVISED AUDIT REPORT DATED 12.01.2005, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RECONCILIATION OF ERRORS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AFFECTING TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY LD. CIT (A) AT PAGES 2 & 3 OF HIS ORDER. DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE 3 SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, TH E LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED . THE LD. CIT (A) HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION EACH ADDITION SEPARATELY AND FOUND TH AT THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON. IT WAS FOUND BY LD. CIT (A) THAT THE REVISED AUDIT REPORT IS TALLYING WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THERE WERE SOME ENTRIES WHICH WERE POSTED IN WRONG HEAD. HOWEVER, WHEN THIS MISTAKE WAS NOTED BY THE AUDITOR, THE SAME WAS RECTIFIED BY PASSING A REVISED AUDIT REPORT. IN LAS T PAGE OF THE AUDIT REPORT IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY THE AUDITOR THAT DUE TO S OME ERROR SOME ENTRIES WERE POSTED IN WRONG HEAD. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO IMPACT ON PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS, THE ABOVE MENTIONED DISALLOWANCES WERE DELETED BY LD. CIT (A). NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. 5. THE LD. D/R HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 6. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT (A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ADDITIONS DELETED BY HIM. THE REASON FOR DIFFERENCE WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). AS STAT ED SOMEWHERE ABOVE, THERE WERE SOME ENTRIES WHICH WERE POSTED IN WRONG HEADS. HOWEVER, THE ENTRIES WERE CORRECTED AND A REVISED AUDIT REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE AUDITOR. T HEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE WAS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ORIGINAL REPORT. WHATEVER DIFFERENCE WAS THERE IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT AND IN THE REVISED REPORT, THEY WERE ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERAT ION THE FACT THAT THE ENTRIES AS PER 4 REVISED REPORT AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND REVISE D REPORT WERE TALLIED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE WAS NO DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR MAKING THE A DDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL AUDIT REPORT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JU STIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION AND THE RECONCILIATION ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIE W OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY ADDITION DELETED BY HIM. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22. 04.2010 SD/- SD/- ( P.K. BANSAL ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AGRA, DATED : 26/04/2010. D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. THE D/R, ITAT AGRA. GUARD FILE (ITA 609/AG/2008) BY ORDER, AR ITAT AGRA.