Shri. Subrata Roy, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1272/BANG/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8493 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S SREELEKHA
• Keywords: Business income; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1272/BANG/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SRI SUBRATA ROY, NO.120, GROUND FLOOR, YETHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING, 11 TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE 560 003. : APPELLANT VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. PARTHASARATHI/ MS. SHEETAL BORKAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. V.S. SREELEKHA O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE CIT(APPEALS) ORDER DATED 20.8.08. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED IS 2005-06. 2. SEVEN GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. GROUND NOS. 1 & 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR . IN THE COURSE OF HEARING ITA NO.1272/BANG/08 PAGE 2 OF 4 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT HE IS NOT PRESS ING GROUND NO.2 AND HENCE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND NO.6 IS ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL AND THE SAME I S DISMISSED. THE REMAINING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS VIZ. NOS. 3, 4 & 5 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HA VE APPRECIATED THAT THE AMOUNT REFLECTED IN THE TDS CE RTIFICATES WAS NOT ONLY FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CHALLENGE, BUT SOME O F THEM WERE ALSO ISSUED FOR THE EARLIER PERIOD AND THEREFORE HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAV E APPRECIATED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE DIFFERENC E ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD NOT BECOME THE INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT AND THEREFORE HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SAME. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITION AS MADE IS ARBIT RARY, EXCESSIVE AND OUGHT TO BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE A SSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF JEWELLERY. A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 25.2.06 IN THE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS GROUP OF CONCERNS. 5. ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 31.12.07 DETERMINING A TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,16,680. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ON EXAMINING THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.5,69,017 AND CLAIMED TDS OF RS.26,263. BUT ON EXAMINING TDS CERTIFICATES SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME, IT SHOWED THE ACTUAL L ABOUR CHARGES AT RS.8,57,141 AND TDS ON THIS LABOUR CHARGES AT RS.19 ,240. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE TDS CERTIFICATES W ITH SUPPORTING BILLS ITA NO.1272/BANG/08 PAGE 3 OF 4 RAISED AND ACCOUNTED, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,88,124 (8,57,141 5,69,017) WAS ADDED BACK TO THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AND ACTUAL TDS AMOUNT OF RS.19,240 WAS ALLOWED IN STEAD OF RS.26,2 63 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ADDITION OF RS.2,88,124 WAS ASSAILE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) CONTENDING THAT THE TDS CER TIFICATES WERE ISSUED NOT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL LABOUR CHARGES, BUT ON T HE BASIS OF PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED SOME OF THE LABOU R CHARGES WERE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND THE DEDUCTEE WHILE MAKING PAYMEN T DURING THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AND ISSUED TDS CERTI FICATES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR THE ADDITION. 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY OBS ERVING BEFORE ME ALSO NO RECONCILIATION COULD BE DONE AND THEREFORE I UPHOLD THE ADDITION AND DISMISS THE GROUND . 7. DISENCHANTED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), A SSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PER CONTRA , THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES, THERE IS A VARIAN CE WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF LABOUR CHARGES. ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RECO NCILE THE SAME BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. EVEN BEFORE US, NO AT TEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO RECONCILE THE TDS CERTIFICATES WITH SUPPORTING BILL S RAISED AND ACCOUNTED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,88,124 IS SUSTAINED . 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1272/BANG/08 PAGE 4 OF 4 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 12 TH MARCH, 2010. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.