ITO Wd, 9(2), Pune V. Shri Ashok Gulabrao Karmare, Pune

ITA 1202/PUN/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7423 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANTKUMAR C LEUVA
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1202/PN/2005: A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.O. WARD 1(2) PUNE APPELLANT VS. ASHOK GULABRAO KARMARE YASHOMANGAL BUILDING A/11 SECTOR 24, NEAR NIGDI POLICE CHOWKY PERADHIKARAN, NIGDI, PUNE-411 044 PAN AHUPK 4842 M RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI HEMANTKUMAR C. LEUVA RESPONDENT BY: NONE ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT-(A)-III PUNE DATED 28-2-2005 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 O N THE POINT OF DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCES IN ASSETS/LIABILITIES/CAPITAL ACCOUNT O F RS. 19,36,847/-. 2. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN ASSETS/L IABILITIES/CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 19,36,847/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME, WHICH HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE. PAGE 2 OF 3 ITA NO. 1202//PN/2005 ASHOK GULABRAO KARMARE A.Y. 2001-02 3. IT IS FOUND THAT TILL THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-00 THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING THREE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS DOING THE BUSINE SS OF POULTRY OR RELATED PRODUCTS. OUT OF THE THREE PROPRIETARY CONC ERNS, ONE WAS SOLD, ONE WAS DISCONTINUED AND THE THIRD ONE WAS CO NTINUED. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE OVERALL POSITION OF THE THREE PROPRI ETARY CONCERNS FOR FINDING OUT THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 -3-2000 AND ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RESULTS WITH THE OPENIN G BALANCES AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEES THIRD PROPRIET ARY CONCERN. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COMPARISON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ON A WRONG FOOTING. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SUBSTANCE OF ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR BALANCE SHEETS AVAILABLE IN THE A SSESSMENT RECORDS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RELATED BALANCE SHEETS, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AS TO NON- COMPARISON OF LIKE WITH LIKE. THE CIT(A) ALSO FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPARED OPENING BALANCES OF ASSESSEES ONE OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSOLIDATION EFFECT. THE CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT FROM THE SUMMAR Y CHART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED WHEN CLUBBED FIGURE WAS LESS THAN THE REFLECTED FIGURE EITHER ON THE LIABILITIES SIDE OR ON THE ASSET SIDE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). PAGE 3 OF 3 ITA NO. 1202//PN/2005 ASHOK GULABRAO KARMARE A.Y. 2001-02 THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE BALANCE SHEETS AVAILA BLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS CONFUSIO N APPEARED AS TO NON-COMPARISON OF LIKE WITH LIKE. THE CIT(A) ALS O OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS COMPARED OPENING BALANCES OF THE ASSESSEES ONE OF THE PROPR IETARY CONCERN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSOLIDATION EFFECT. IN TH IS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A). THE SAME IS UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MARCH 2011 SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 31 ST MARCH 2011 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT- (A) III PUNE 4. THE CIT- IV PUNE 5. THE D.R, B BENCH, PUNE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE