AJABNARAYAN S. PANDEY, MUMBAI V. ITO 20(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1278/MUM/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Ajabnarayan S. Pandey, who appealed against the reassessment order for the assessment year 2008-09. Initially, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) completed the assessment under section 143(3), which was later reopened under section 147 based on various discrepancies noted in the income and expenses reported. The ITO alleged that certain incomes were not fully reported and some expenses claimed were not incurred during the year, as the assessee followed a cash system of accounting. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the reopening, but the Tribunal, after examining the materials and arguments, concluded that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and not on new tangible material, leading to the quashing of the reassessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124793 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Praful Chunnilal Patel Vs. ACIT, 236 ITR 832 (GUGO Gujarat)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; TDS
• Section: 148; 43B; 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1278/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ajabnarayan S. Pandey 5/7, Moden Town, off Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 बिधम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1) Room No. 702, 7 th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No AFUPP9294A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 28.12.2022 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 09.01.2016, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, for the AY: 2008-09. 2 I . T . A . N o . 1278/ M u m / 2 016 AJABNARAYAN PANDEY LL 2. In the grounds of appeal the assessee has mainly challenged the validity of re-opening u/s. 147. 3. Facts in briefs are that, the assessee is an individual carrying out business from his two proprietorship concerns, in the name and style of ‘A.S. Pandey and Company’; and ‘M/s. Pankaj Traders’. Assessee is into business of distribution rights of movies, serials, etc. and selling it to respective clients and from other proprietor concern he was doing business of trading in paints. For the assessment year 2008-09 Return of income was filed on 16.09.2008 at an income of Rs. 5,77,256/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and assessment order 143(3) was passed assessing the income at Rs. 6,42,982/- vide order dated 24.12.2010. 4. Subsequently, assessee against was re-opened u/s 147by issuance of notice u/s. 148 on 28.03.2013, on the following reasons recorded. In this case, the return of income was filed on 16.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 5,77,255/- and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 24.12.2010, determining taxable income at Rs. 6,42,982/-. 3 I . T . A . N o . 1278/ M u m / 2 016 AJABNARAYAN PANDEY LL It is observed from the record that the assessee follows cash system of accounting and have received an amount of Rs.89,30,396/- from M/s Hathway cable & Datacom pvt ltd out of which the assessee has offered only amount of Rs.83,68,698/ Accordingly I have reasons tobelieve that an amount of Rs.5,61,703/- (89,30,396-83,68,698) have escaped assessment. It is further observed from the balance sheet the assessee have shown amounts payable to Bawaja movies pvt ltd Rs. 74,715/- Zee entertainment pvt ltd Rs. 7,94,185/- and Vyakti vikas Kendra Rs.26,600/- as on 31.03.2008. Since the assessee follows cash system of accounting and have not incurred these expenses during the year, the same cannot be claimed and this requires to be examined as the amount to the extent of Rs.8,94,960/- have escaped assessment. It is observed that the assessee has shown VAT payable of Rs.3,35,726/- and Rs.2,70,000 in its proprietary concerns M/s A.S.Pandey & Co. and M/s Pankaj Traders respectively Since the assessee follows cash system of accounting the same is allowable on actual payment as per provisions of section 438 of the Act. The same requires to be examined as failure to do so have resulted in escapement of income of Rs. 5,05,726/- It is observed from the profit & loss account and balance sheet the assessee has shown audit fees of Rs. 15,000/- and TDS on commission Rs. 1,77.577/- outstanding as on 31 03.2008. 4 I . T . A . N o . 1278/ M u m / 2 016 AJABNARAYAN PANDEY LL Since the assessee follows cash system of accounting, the same should have been disallowed. Accordingly an income of Rs.1,92,577/- have escaped assessment. From the details submitted it is observed that the assessee have spent an amount of Rs.67,016/- in cash on account of business promotion. As per provisions of sec 40A(3) of the Act, any expenses exceeding Rs. 20,000/- is to be incurred by of crossed cheque. Failure to do entails disallowance of 20% of such expenses claimed, which have not been done by the assessment order. In view of the same an amount of Rs. 13,403/- have escaped assessment on this account. The assessee have not deducted TDS on purchases made from H.R. Enterprises Rs.3,18,336/- and Mateshwari Rs.3,20,000 event hough these purchases pertain to movie/ TV serial rights. The assessee have also failed to deduct TDS on payments made to M/s Global Video Vision amounting to Rs. 1,55,900/- in respect of conversion / transfer of recording of serial "Prema" from "Avid" format to "DG-BETA" Failure to do so have resulted in escapement of income amounting to Rs. 6,38,336/- and Rs.1,55,900/- respectively. 5. The Ld. AO, during the course of assessment proceedings had proceeded to make addition on the account of amount shown as payable to 3 parties as on 31.03.2008, totaling to Rs. 8,94,960/- and observed that since assessee follows cash system of accounting 5 I . T . A . N o . 1278/ M u m / 2 016 AJABNARAYAN PANDEY LL and only purchases which has been paid during the year can be allowed as expenses not which are payable. Accordingly, amount of Rs. 8,94,960/- was disallowed and added back to the income of the Assessee. He further, made addition of Rs. 2,70,000/- u/s. 43B on account of late payment of VAT on the ground of assessee was not paid or incurred any expenditure. Apart from that, he was also made addition on account of audit fees of Rs. 15000/- and TDS & commission of Rs, 1,77,577/- shown as payable aggregating to Rs. 1,92,577/-. All the addition has been made on the premise by the AO that the assessee was following cash system of accounting therefore any sum payable cannot be allowed. 6. Apart from that, AO has also made disallowance u/s. 40A (3), of Rs. 13,403/-for some cash payments; disallowance of prior period expenses relating to purchases of Rs. 6,38,336/-; addition on account of non deduction TDS of Rs. 1,55,900/- and lastly, addition account of sales of Rs. 5,61,703/- stating that assessee follows cash system of accounting and when assessee has received amount of Rs. 89,30,396/- from Hatchway Cable and Datocom. P. Ltd. out of which assessee has offered amount of Rs. 83,68,693/-, 6 I . T . A . N o . 1278/ M u m / 2 016 AJABNARAYAN PANDEY LL accordingly the difference has been added by him. Finally, the assessment has been the completed the income of Rs. 36,39,860/-. 7. Before the Ld. CIT (A) assessee has challenged the validity of reopening u/s. 147 on various grounds which has been rejected for the Ld. CIT(A), holding that Assessing Officer has followed the proper procedure of law and the reopening has been done on the basis of material available with him showing the under assessment of income and he referred to judgment Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunnilal Patel Vs. ACIT, 236 ITR 832 (GUGO Gujarat). 8. None appear on behalf of the assessee and therefore, appeal is being decided on the basis of material available on record and the paper book filed by the Assessee. 9. Since, assessee has only challenged the validity of reopening and, therefore we are confining our decision only on the validity of reopening u/s. 147. 10. As discussed above, already assessment u/s. 143(3) was made by the AO while order dated 24.12.2010, wherein assessee’s audited 7 I . T . A . N o . 1278/ M u m / 2 016 AJABNARAYAN PANDEY LL accounts and return of income have been accepted after details scrutiny. The case has been reopened u/s.147 mostly on the ground that, assessee follows cash system of accounting and certain amounts which has been received by the assessee has not been reflected completely; and secondly, there were certain amounts payable in the balance sheet which is not allowable, because of cash system of accounting. Apart from that, certain amount on VAT payable has been made by invoking provision u/s.43B and other items as discussed above. First of all, ‘reasons recorded’ nowhere refers as to what was the material coming on record before the AO indicating that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment or there is any tangible material coming after the completion of assessment on the points which has been raised in the reasons recorded have not been examined by the AO during the scrutiny proceedings. If, all these items of balance sheet and profit & loss account have been examined by the AO, which is evident from the copy of notices appearing in the paper book at the page of 73-75 and reply of the assessee from pages 76-86, wherein all the explanation regarding the same very items as raised in the reasons recorded has been asked by the AO and Assessee has given 8 I . T . A . N o . 1278/ M u m / 2 016 AJABNARAYAN PANDEY LL categorical explanation along with the supporting documents. Once the same very issue has been dealt and inquired upon by the AO and same has been accepted, then without any tangible material coming on record reopening cannot be done on the same facts and material which tantamount to ‘change of opinion’. The assessee has also explained before the AO regarding the differences in the amounts of purchase which was shown in the current year was pertaining to the purchases of the previous year and all these facts and re conciliation was given before the AO. Similarly, with regard to payment of VAT also assessee has given the vouchers of payments. Each and every item of income which has been discussed in the reasons recorded has been duly explained not only in the course of assessment but also in the course of re assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we find that the reasons recorded by the AO is based on ‘change of opinion’ which cannot be sustained and therefore, entire reassessment proceedings is quashed and consequently the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3) is held as bad in law. 11. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9 I . T . A . N o . 1278/ M u m / 2 016 AJABNARAYAN PANDEY LL Orders pronounced in the open court on 24 th March, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S Rifaur Rahman) (Amit Shukla) Accountant Member Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;ददनांक Dated : 24.03.2023 Ms.Urmila आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 5. दवभागीयप्रदतदनदध, आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, .उि/सहधयकिंजीकधर (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअिीिीयअनर्करण, मुंबई/ ITAT, Mumb