Ulaganathan Porko, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1198/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9089 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1198/MDS/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI ULAGANATHAN PORKO, 9, SUKUMARAN STREET, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : AAKPP 1887 A V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD IX(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 30.05.2016 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.06.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 13, CHEN NAI, DATED 19.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN AD DITION OF 2 I.T.A. NO. 1198/MDS/16 ` 14,66,772/- ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE GROSS RECEIPT SHOWN IN FORM 26AS AND THE GROSS RECE IPT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCO RDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F RUNNING A RETAIL OUTLET FOR PETROL AND DIESEL AT VELANKANNI. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOMINATED BY BHA RAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TUGGING OF SHIPS ON CONTRACT BASIS. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL GROSS RECEIPT. IT APPEARS THAT ON THE PAYMENT, WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, TAX WAS DEDUCTED AND THE SAME WAS REFLECT ED IN FORM 26AS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE FIGURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED AND THE PAYMENT WAS NOT RECE IVED. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS RECEIPT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT AND WHAT WAS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. C OUNSEL, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO GO THRO UGH THE ACTUAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND TDS MADE SO THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE, IF ANY, ACTUALLY ARISEN. 3 I.T.A. NO. 1198/MDS/16 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT AS PER FORM 26AS, TH E GROSS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ` 99,76,663/-. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED ONLY ` 85,09,891/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF ` 14,66,772/- IN THE GROSS RECEIPT FROM THE CONTRACT. WHEN THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCIL E THE FIGURE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OTHER WAY EXCEPT TO TREAT THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CI T(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RETAIL SALE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AS AN AGENT OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATI ON LTD. AND ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TUGGING OF SHIPS ON CONTRACT BASIS. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONTRACT RECEIPTS AFTER DEDUC TION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS REFLECTED I N FORM 26AS MAINTAINED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. IN THE PR OFIT & LOSS 4 I.T.A. NO. 1198/MDS/16 ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CONTRACT RECEIP TS AT ` 85,09,891/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 14,66,772/- WAS NOT RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). NOW THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT AN OPPO RTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO HIM TO RECONCILE THE FIGURES BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 5. UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT, THE ASSESSIN G AUTHORITY HAS TO LEVY TAX ON THE TAXABLE INCOME ASSESSED AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE OBJECT OF THE ACT IS ON LY TO LEVY TAX ON TAXABLE INCOME. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOW THE DIFFERENCE OCCURRED B ETWEEN THE FIGURE SHOWN IN FORM 26AS AND THE PROFIT & LOSS ACC OUNT PREPARED BY HIM. IF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS SHOWN IN FORM 26A S EXCEEDED THE CONTRACT RECEIPT DISCLOSED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW SUC H A DIFFERENCE HAS COME. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT PREJUDIC E THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN FACT, GIVING SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY W OULD PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER 5 I.T.A. NO. 1198/MDS/16 SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND THE REAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 TH JUNE, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 17 TH JUNE, 2016. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-13, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-8, CHENNAI-34 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.