Smt. Anjeline Josephine Pyngrope, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 56(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1053/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70491 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA PRASAD SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM.P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1053 / KOL / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 SMT. ANJELINE JOSEPHINIE PYNGROPE SA-01 SANKAR ABASAN, HELLABATALA, BAGUIATI, KOLKATA 700 059 [ PAN NO.AKWPP 0155B ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-56(1), KOLKATA, 3 GOVT PLACE (WEST), 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA 700001 / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT) /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL, AR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 25-11-2013 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 -12-2013 / // / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXXVI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 7 54/CIT(A)- XXXVI/KOLWD.-56(1)09-10 DATED 24-05-2011. THE ASSES SMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, CIRCLE-56(1), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 22-1 2-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BEING DIFFERENCE IN HIRE ITA NO.1053KOL/2011 A.Y.2007-08 SMT. ANJELINE J PYNGROPE V. ITO WD-56(1) KOL PAGE 2 CHARGES AS PER ITS FORM 26AS DETAILS AND RECONCILIA TION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,90,996/-. FOR THI S ASSESSEE RAISED FOLLOWING THREE GROUNDS:- 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED GROSS HIRE CHARGES AT RS.1,26,98,437/- IN HER PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO AO, THIS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRE CHARG ES AS DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE AND AS PER ITS DETAILS IN FORM NO.16AS ISS UED BY DIFFERENT CONCERNS IS TO BE ADDED. ACCORDING TO AO, FIRSTLY, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF GROSS RECEIPTS AS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IN PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2007 AND AS DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.26,56,534- WAS ADDED BEING UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT I N BANK ACCOUNT AND THIS WAS CONTESTED BEFORE CIT(A) BY ASSESSEE AND AFTER R ECONCILIATION WITH THE BANK STATEMENT THE AO CONTENDED IN HIS REMAND REPOR T AS UNDER:- ON EXAMINATION OF THE REVERSAL ENTRY STATEMENT FILED BY THE AR WITH THE BANK STATEMENT OF HDFC BANK IT IS FUND THA T OUT OF UNDISCLOSED BANK DEPOSIT OF RS.26,56,534/- WITH HDFC BANK, THER E ARE REVERSAL ENTRIES FOR DISHONORED CHEQUES TO THE TUNE OF RS.18 ,06,724- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, CIT(A) RESTRICTED ADDITION BE ING EXCESS DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,49,810/-. FOR THIS ADDITION, THE ASSES SEE IS NOT IN APPEAL AND SHE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ONLY DISPUTE REMAINED QUA THE ADDITION OF RS.4,90,996/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN HIRE CHARGES. ACCORDING TO CIT(A), ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE PAYMENTS MADE BY I OC AND HP WITH THE RECEIPT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. NOW, BEFORE US, TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WHICH DISCLOSE THE AMOUNTS ALONG WITH EVIDENCES AND THE RELEVANT CHART, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- SL NO NAME OF THE CONCERN DATE OF RECEIPT AMOUNT RECEIVED 1 INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. 18.04.06 175133/- 2 -DO- 28.04.06 67647/- ITA NO.1053KOL/2011 A.Y.2007-08 SMT. ANJELINE J PYNGROPE V. ITO WD-56(1) KOL PAGE 3 3 -DO- 01.05.06 33734- 4 -DO- 10.05.06 45187/- 5 HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. 21.04.06 48098/- 6 -DO- 30.05.06 84191/- 7 INDIAN OIL CORPN. (M.D) 06.07.06 4569/- 8 -DO- 06.07.06 19577/- 9 -DO- 06.07.06 12860/- RS.4,90,996/- THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US EXPLAINE D THAT DIFFERENCE HAS ARISEN IN THE PARTICULAR TRANSACTION DUE TO NON CON SIDERATION OF TDS AND OTHER DEDUCTIONS. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE AO COULD NOT UNDE RSTAND THE TRUE FACTS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS. HE ACTUALLY MADE DOUBLE ADDITIO NS BECAUSE THESE WERE ALREADY CONSIDERED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS. 4 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND SEEN THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOW REPRODUCED ABOVE. WE FIND FROM THE EVIDENCES THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD RECONCILE THESE TRANSACTIONS FROM THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIPTS FROM IO C, HPCL AND ION (M.D).IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY , WE DELETE THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH DEC., 2013 SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM.P. GEORGE) (MAHAVIR S INGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP !' #- 19 /1 2 /2013 ) **+ **+ **+ **+ ,+ ,+ ,+ ,+ / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT ITA NO.1053KOL/2011 A.Y.2007-08 SMT. ANJELINE J PYNGROPE V. ITO WD-56(1) KOL PAGE 4 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '.'*/ 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0- / CIT (A) 5. +34 ***/, */ , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 478 9: / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ;/< '= */ , )