Shri Santosh Chandra Saha , Agartala V. Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Agartala , Agartala

CO 9/GTY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4215 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Tax effect
• Section: 69B; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI BENCH, GAUHATI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member C.O No.9/GTY/2013 (arising out of ITA 279/GTY/2013) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Santosh Chandra Saha...................................................................Appellant C/o M/s. Smart, Sakuntala Road, Agartala, Tripura. [PAN: AMLPS8651A] vs. ITO, Ward-4, Agartala..................................................................Respondent Appearances by: Shri Sidharth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri I. Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 24, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : May 24, 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present cross-objection has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.02.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Siliguri [hereinafter as ‘CIT(A)’]. The cross-objection was filed pursuant to the filing of the ITA 279/Gau/2013 by the Department, which appeal already stands dismissed on account of tax effect being less than the prescribed limit. The assessee in this cross-objection has taken the following grounds: 1. For that the appeal of the Revenue is non-maintainable. 2. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the arbitrary taken Net Profit at Rs. 9,75,555/- which was assumed by the ld. AO without any reasonable and reliable basis and consequently, in restoring the Net Profit declared by the assessee in his accounts/return of income. 3. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the arbitrary addition made by the ld. AO of Rs. 17,85,367/- on account of alleged undisclosed stock without finding any material to show that any actual investment was made by the assessee which was not recorded in his books of account. 4. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the arbitrarily made addition of Rs. 1,90,000/- by the ld. A.O allegedly under section 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment. C.O No.9/GTY/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Santosh Chandra Saha 2 5 For that as the addition of Rs. 22,29,774/- was made by the ld. AO by invoking the provisions of sec. 69A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) after finding that the said addition was made without allowing any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, ought to have deleted the said addition being made in gross violation of the provisions of sec. 69A of the Act and also in gross violation to the principles of natural justice. 6. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of entire expenditure of Rs. 4,15,216/- incurred under the head 'Carrying & Labour'. 7. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 64,090/- made by the ld. AO on account of alleged fictitious liability. 8. For that the cross-objector craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds of cross-objection and/or to modify or resign any ground (s) of cross-objection at or before the time of hearing.” 2. A perusal of the above grounds of cross-objection reveals that the assessee vide Ground No.1 to 4 has just supported the order of the CIT(A). Since the assessee is not aggrieved on these issues, therefore, no adjudication is required in respect of Ground Nos.1 to 4 and the same are accordingly dismissed. 3. Ground No.5 – The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted since the issue relating to this ground has already been restored to the file of Assessing Officer for verification purpose hence he does not press Ground No.5. Ground No.5 is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground No.6 – Vide Ground No.6, the assessee has agitated against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of entire expenditure claimed of Rs.4,15,216/- allegedly incurred under the head “carrying and labour” in respect of fruit sale business of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) disallowed the entire expenditure on account of failure of the assessee to furnish necessary evidences such as bills and vouchers regarding incurring of the aforesaid expenditure. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities have not doubted the business of the assessee. That since the expenditure was paid to small time labour hence, as per practice no receipts/vouchers were obtained. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. C.O No.9/GTY/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Santosh Chandra Saha 3 5. Considering the above submission and overall facts and circumstances, the disallowance is restricted to 50% of the aforesaid disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A). This ground is accordingly partly allowed. 6. Ground No.7 - The ld. counsel for the assessee has stated at bar, he does not press Ground No.7, this ground is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 7. Ground No.8 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 8. In the result, the Cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Manish Borad] [Sanjay Garg] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 24.05.2022. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant-Shri Santosh Chandra Saha 2. The Respondent- ITO, Ward-4, Agartala 3. The CIT concerned- 4. The CIT(A) - 5. The DR - 6. Guard File //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches