M/s. Rog Mukti, Malda V. ITO, Ward - 3, Malda, Malda

ITA 134/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8117 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K DEY JCITSR

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH A, KOLKATA () BEFORE , ,, , , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , '# SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / ITA NO . 134/KOL/2012 %& '(/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 (*+ / APPELLANT ) M/S.ROG MUKTI, MALDA (PAN:AADFR 4261 K) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT ) I.T.O., WARD-3, MALDA *+ . / '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: NONE ,-*+ . / '/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI A.K.DEY, JCIT(SR.DR) 0%1 . !# /DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2012. 2' . !# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2012. '3 / ORDER . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , '# PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 15.11.2011 OF THE LD. CIT-(A)-JALPAIGURI PERTAINING TO A.YR. 2007-08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CO NFIRMING THE ARBITRARY ADDITION OF RS. 5.00,290/- ON A/C OF THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCE ( AS ON 31.03.2007) OF THE 6( SIX ) SUNDRY CREDITORS / DEBT ORS WITHOUT AT ALL CONSIDERING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT ALONG WITH EXPLANATORY LET TER AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE BANK STATEMENTS DULY FURNISHED BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES RECONCILING THE CLOSING BALANCES APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AND THE CONCERNED PARTIES. THE BIASED, PREJUDICED AND PERVERSE DECISIONS OF THE A. O AND THE LA. CIT(A) ARE LIABLE TO BE REVERSED AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CON FIRMING THE SAID ARBITRARY ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,290/- ON A/C OF THE ALLEGED DI FFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE SAID SUNDRY CREDITORS / DEBTORS WITHOUT AT ALL CONS IDERING THE FACTS THAT IN SOME CASES THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUES IN MARCH E ND OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING 2 YEAR AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS COULD NOT BE AC COUNTED FOR BY THOSE PARTIES IN THEIR BOOKS AS THE RELEVANT CHEQUES PRESENTED BY THEM WER E CLEARED IN EARLY APRIL OF THE NEXT YEAR AND SECONDLY THE CLOSING BALANCE IN THE BOOKS OF ONE PARTY MENTIONED IN A.OS ORDER WAS TOTALLY WRONG. THE BASELESS ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT AND CONFIRMED IN APPEAL SHOULD HE DELETED IN FULL. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CON FIRMING THE ARBITRARY ADDITION OF RS. 33,587/- ON A/C OF THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN THE CREDIT NOTES MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND REASON WHATSOEVER AND WITHOUT AT ALL CONSIDERING THE FACTS ON RECORD. THE BASELESS ADDITION MADE IN ASSE SSMENT IN THIS RESPECT AND CONFIRMED IN APPEAL SHOULD HE DELETED IN FULL. 4. FOR THAT YOUR PETITIONER CRAVES THE RIGHT TO PU T ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND/OR TO ALTER/AMEND/MODIFY THE PRESENT GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, O N GOING THROUGH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 4. THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL IS RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THE DIFFERE NCE IN THE CREDIT NOTES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,29 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND HE F URTHER ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.33,587/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CREDIT NOTES. 4.1. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SA ME BY OBSERVING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTS AND COPY OF THE LEDGER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE RECONCILIATI ON STATEMENT ALONG WITH EXPLANATORY LETTER AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE BANK ST ATEMENT DULY FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES RECONCILING THE CLOSING BALANCES APPEAR ING IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AND THE CONCERNED PARTIES. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE F ACT THAT IN SOME CASES THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE IN MARCH EN D OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR THE OTHER PARTIES HAS BEEN ACCOUNTING IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEARS. 3 5. WHEN THE BENCH PROPOSED TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO THE LD. DR COULD NOT OBJECT FOR THE SAME. THEREFORE, IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE BOTH THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF AO TO DO THE CATEGORICAL FINDINGS ON THE RECONCILIA TION STATEMENTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADDING THIS AMOUNT AS U NEXPLAINED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.10.2012. SD/- SD/- , , , , MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , , , , '# '# '# '# , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 09.10.2012 R.G.(P.S.) '3 . ,4 5'4'6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.ROG MUKTI, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, P.O.& DIST.MALDA , WEST BENGAL, PIN:732101. 2 I.T.O., WARD-3, MALDA. 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT(A)-JALPAIGURI. 5. THE CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA -4 ,/ TRUE COPY, '3%0/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 4