Shri. N. R. Kumaraswamy, Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2)(5), Bangalore

ITA 1167/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5170 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R PREMI J C IT BENGALURU
• Keywords: Set aside; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1167/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 12 SHRI. N. R. KUMARASWAMY, NO.15, NEW D SOUZA LAYOUT, HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK 3 RD STAGE, BENGALURU 560085. PAN : ALWPK 3713 D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. R. PREMI, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2020 O R D E R PER ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, A. M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-7, BENGALURU, DATED 25.03.2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1167/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 4 ITA NO. 1167/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 4 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING ON 24.06.2020. ON THIS DATE, LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ON HIS REQUEST, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.09.2020 AND THIS DATE OF HEARING WAS INTIMATED TO THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, ON 23.09.2020, PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 79 PAGES WAS FILED BY LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALONG WITH PAPER BOOK, A LETTER IS ALSO FILED BY LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THE MATTER IS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 24.09.2020 WITH C BENCH AND HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH AWARE ABOUT THIS DATE OF HEARING BUT IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CONTAINS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) ON PAGES 1 TO 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE 5 TO 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED WITH GROSS RECEIPTS AS IN FORM 26AS/AIR INFORMATION RS.6,33,04,632/- AND AFTER REDUCING VARIOUS AMOUNTS AS PER THE DETAIL GIVEN IN THE RECONCILIATION, HE HAS ARRIVED TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,48,98,286/- AND HE HAS ALSO SHOWN THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALMOST SAME FIGURE WHICH IS RS.5,48,82,422/- HAVING A DIFFERENCE OF ONLY RS.15,864/- BUT AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), HE HAS NOT ONLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.15,864/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO AMOUNTS OF RS.5,48,98,286/- AND RS.5,48,82,422/- BUT HE HAS ALSO CONFIRMED ADDITION OF RS.10,07,597/-. THIS AMOUNT IS REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF AMOUNTS TOWARDS SUPPLY OF SAFETY SHOES AND UNIFORM NOTED IN THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AS PER LEARNED CIT(A), THIS DIFFERENCE OF RS.10,07,597/- COULD NOT BE PROPER EXPLAINED BY LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THIS ISSUE ITA NO. 1167/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 4 REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.10,23,461/- FOR WHICH ADDITION IS CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AND ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PRODUCE FURTHER DETAILS REGARDING THESE TWO DIFFERENCES OF RS.10,07,597/- AND RS.15,864/-, TOTAL RS.10,23,461/- BEFORE CIT(A) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME IF THE ASSESSEE FILES IT BEFORE CIT(A), LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH BUT IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FILE SATISFACTORY REPLY BEFORE CIT(A) REGARDING THESE TWO DIFFERENCES THEN THE ADDITION MAY BE CONFIRMED AGAIN. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (BEENA PILLAI) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED: 09.10.2020. /NS/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.