Amar Sparklers Factory, Sivakasi V. DCIT, Madurai

ITA 1308/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95939 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAJASEKARAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS.1308 & 1309/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-2005 & 2005-2006) AMAR SPARKLERS FACTORY, NO.38, M.C. STREET, SIVAKASI 626 123. [PAN:AAEFA 4270G] ( /APPELLANT) VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.C. III, MADURAI ( !' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. V. RAJASEKARAN, C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.B. KOLI, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.09.2015 # / O R D E R THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 19, CHENNAI, DATED 24.02.2015 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SI NCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THE SE APPEALS ARE COMBINED, HEARD TOGETHER, AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. I.T.A.NOS. 1308 &1309/MDS/2015 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND IN ITA NO.1308/MDS/2015 1. THE RESPECTABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNAI WAS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE PASSI NG THE ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE AMOUNT IN SALES E2,8 5,754/- AND BEING HANDLING AND FORWARDING CHARGES COLLECTED/CREDITED IN PACKING MATERIALS ACCOUNT OF E2,80,800.41 INSTEAD OF CREDIT IN PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT AND MAHAMAI PAID E4,953.42. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S. AMAR SPARKLERS FACTORY AND ITS PARTNERS ON 21.10.2008. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS RELATING TO THE ASSES SEE AND THE GROUP CONCERNS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. SUBSEQUEN TLY, RELEVANT STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOMES FOR THE AY 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AD MITTING E4,58,860/- AND E6,39,634/ - RESPECTIVELY ON 23.12.2009. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND OUT THAT THE SALES TURNOVER AS PER SALES TAX ORDER IS E79,60,649/ - AND E90,15,228/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT EARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY WHEREAS THE ASSESS EE FIRM HAD ADMITTED ONLY E76,74,894/- AND E.87,11,015/- FO R THE .SAME AS SALES MADE INCLUDING MAHAMAI AND INSURANCE . I.T.A.NOS. 1308 &1309/MDS/2015 :- 3 -: HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSME NT BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,85,754/- AND E3,04,213/-FOR THE AYS 2004-05 AND 2005-06, BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWE EN THE SALES TAX ORDER AND THE SALES MADE TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FO UND TO BE APPARENTLY NOT CORRECT AND AGAINST THE UNCONTROLLED FACT RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 HAS OBSERVED THAT THE SALES AS PER SALES TAX ORDER IS RS.79,60,649/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD ADMI TTED E76,74,894/- AS SALES INCLUDING MAHAMAI AND INSURA NCE. SIMILARLY THESE FIGURES OF TURNOVER AS PER SALES TA X ORDER AND AS ADMITTED TURNOVER AT RS. 9015228/- AND RS. 87110 15/- RESPECTIVELY HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE ABOVE SAID FACTS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WITH ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE. NO EVIDENCE H AS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL TAKEN I.T.A.NOS. 1308 &1309/MDS/2015 :- 4 -: BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FACTS RECORDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SUPPORT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THERE WAS NO REASON OR BASIS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION S ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE SALES AS PER THE ADMITTED TURNOVER IN THE INCOME TAX AND TURNOVER AS PER THE SALES TAX ORDER IN BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. ACCORD INGLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BOTH SIDES HEARD. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN TUR NOVER DISCLOSED TO THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE TURNOVER DISCLOSE D TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF INCLUSION OF MAHAMAI, HANDLING CHARGES AND TRANSIT INSURANCE AND IF THE ABOVE ITEMS ARE EX CLUDED, THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE OF TURNOVER DISCLOSED TO THE SALES TA X DEPARTMENT AND THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. 6. IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROPERLY RECONC ILED THESE TWO TURNOVERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ONLY ARGUED WITHOUT I.T.A.NOS. 1308 &1309/MDS/2015 :- 5 -: ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. IN MY OPINION, IT IS APP ROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROPERLY RECONCILE THESE TWO TURNOV ERS WITH SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A CCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 7. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN ITA NO.1309/MDS/2015, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SIMILAR D IRECTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1 308 & 1309/MDS/2015 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPT EMBER, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !' /CHENNAI. #$ /DATED: .09.2015. KV $% &' (' /COPY TO: 1. ) APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. * ( )/CIT(A) 4. * /CIT 5. '+, - /DR 6. ,. / /GF. I.T.A.NOS. 1308 &1309/MDS/2015 :- 6 -: