Devendra Gopaldas Gandhi, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer, Ahmednagar

ITA 1353/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5661 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISAN B SAMM A NE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J UDICIAL M EMBER . / I TA NO. 1353 /PUN/20 17 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 DEVENDRA GOPALDAS GANDHI M/S. S.B GANDHI TAX CONSULTANT, 146 1 ST FLOOR, AMBER PLAZA STATION ROAD, AHMEDNAGAR PIN - 414 001. PAN : AAYPG2978B ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, AHMEDNAGAR. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR & SHRI KISAN B SAMM A NE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE / DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 . 0 2 .202 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 . 02 .2021 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 2, PUNE DA TED 15.03.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AS PER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD: 2 ITA NO. 1353 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 HAVE ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 64,69,182/ - BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING B ALANCE IN THE TRADE CREDITORS A/C. THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) WAS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT HE MAY BE ALLOWED TO ADD, AMEND THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN IN DIVIDUAL AND IS INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF NOTE BOOKS, ACCOUNT BOOKS AND ALSO DOING THE SAME ON JOB WORK BASIS UNDER THE NAME OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCER N M/S. DHANALAXMI ENTERPRISES. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.64,69,182/ - BEING THE AMOUNT OF UN - RECONCILED CREDIT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,19,52,877/ - AGAINST THE CREDITOR KOKUYO CAMLIN LTD. MUMBAI AS AGAINST DEBIT ENTRY SHO WN BY KOKOYO CAMLIN LTD. I N THEIR BOOKS AT RS.1,83,86,216/ - . SINCE THE DIFFEREN CE OF RS.64,69 ,182/ - WAS NOT RECONCILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.64,69,182/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE HAS HELD AND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 4.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS CONTENTS OF THE REMA ND REPORT. I T IS SEEN THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.64,69,182/ - WAS MADE DUE TO UN - RECONCILED AMOUNT OF CRE DIT BALANCE OF M/S. KOKOYO CAMLIN LTD. MUMBAI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED NECESSARY VERIFICATION WITH M/S. KOKOYO CAMLIN LTD., HOWEVER IN ABSENCE OF PROPER COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF M/S. KOKOY O CAMLIN LTD., THE DIFFERENCE COULD NOT BE RECONCILED. EVEN THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO RECONCILE THIS DIFFERENCE. THE CREDIT ENTRIES PERTAIN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE APPELLANT IS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE WHICH WAS NOT DONE BY HIM. I THEREFORE FIND NO REAS ON TO BE AT VARIANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO. HIS ORDER IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 3 ITA NO. 1353 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 4. WE OBSERVE FROM RECORD THA T VIDE PARA 4.1 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) S ORDER , HE HAD CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 08.09.2016 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT ON 17.02.20 17. THAT IN REMAND REPORT, IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) TO M/S. KOK U YO CAMLIN LTD. THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT WAS NOT IC ED THAT THE SAID LETTER WAS ISSUED ON 27.03.2015 ASKING TO SUBMIT INFORMATION BY 20.03.2015 WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL. THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT COMMENTED THAT PERHAPS , IT IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND DETAILS WHICH WERE ACTUALLY CALLED FOR TO BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 28.03.2015 HAVING LIMITED TIME TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT . WE , THEREAFTER , FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.03.2015. THAT EVEN IF THE COMMENT O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT IS ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN RESPECT OF D ATE OF PROVIDING INFORMATION IN RESPECT TO THE NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS W ITH SUCH LIMITED TIME FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT , AMPLE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE MUST BE SOME JUDICIOUS PROCESS FOR RECONCI LIATION TO THIS DIFFEREN CE IN CLOSING BALANCE IN CREDITORS ACCOUNT. THAT ALSO , REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY MUST BE GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE ON MERITS. 5. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOUL D BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HEREIN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE PARTIES CONCERN ED AND EXPLANATION SHOULD BE CALLED FOR FROM M/S. KOKUYO CAMLIN LTD . AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD RE - ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE AS PER LAW FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN VIEW THEREO F, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INDICATED HEREI NABOVE. 4 ITA NO. 1353 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 04 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 20 2 1 . SD/ - SD/ - INTURI RAMA RAO PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 04 TH FEBRUARY , 202 1 SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - 2, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT - 1, PUNE. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE C O PY // / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 5 ITA NO. 1353 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 0 4 . 02 .202 1 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 0 4 . 02 .202 1 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER