Parkash Kumar Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata V. I.T.O Wd - 29(4),kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1406/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91995 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY ADL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEBABRATA GHOSH
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI, P . K BANSAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , J UDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 733 / KOL / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 SRI RANJIT KUMAR SARKAR DHANKAILHAT, P.O. KALIAGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR, PIN. 733 129 [ PAN NO.AMGPS 5878Q ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 P.O. KARNOJORA, RAIGANJ,UTTAR DINAJPUR PIN 733 130 / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT / BY APPELLANT SHRI DEBABRATA GHOSH, ADVOCATE / BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANJAY, ADL. CIT, DR / DATE OF HEARING 12 - 06 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 - 06 - 2015 / O R D E R PER P .K. BANSAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: - THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) JALPAIGURI DATED 14 - 02 - 2011 BY TAKING FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05: - 1. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF: (A) RS.2,19,300 . 00 ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; (B) RS.2,01,140.00 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS CREDIT U/S 68 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; ITA NO. 733/KOL/2011 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SH. RANJIT KR. SARKAR V. ITO WD - 1 RNJ PAGE 2 (C) RS. 86,663.00 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF FUEL EXPENSES WHICH AMOUNT WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. 2. FIRST ISSUE RELATE TO THE ADDITION OF BOGUS CREDIT AMOUNTING TO 2,19,300/ - AND 2,01,140/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER BOGUS CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE CASH CREDIT OF 2,19,300/ - THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA - 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONED THAT MR.HARI GOPAL PAUL IN HIS REPLY STATED THAT BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT THERE WAS NO PAYMENT OR RECEI PT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTY DURING THE ABOVE PERIOD. THIS STATEMENT ITSELF PROVED THAT MR. HARI GOPAL PAUL IN WHOSE NAME, THERE WAS A CREDIT OF 2,19,300/ - HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE CREDIT BELONGS TO HIM BUT THERE WAS NO MONEY RECEIPT OR PAID DURING THE AFORESAID PERIOD. BUT THE AO INCORRECTLY, IN OUR OPINION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION INTERPRETED IT AS IF MR. HARI GOPAL PAUL DENIED TO HAVE ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. SINCE MR. HARI GOPAL PAUL, WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE MADE THE PAYMENT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05 . WE THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF 2,19,300/ - . 4. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF 2,01,140/ - IS CONCERNED WE NOTED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS RELATE TO PURCHASE AND HE MADE FROM RAH UL OIL & MINI RICE MILL. BUT SRI RANJIT KUNDU ON BEHALF OF THE SAID MILL HAS DENIED ANY TRANSACTION BEEN ENTERED INTO WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF 2,01,140/ - . 5. SO FAR AS THE DI SALLOWANCE OF 86,663/ - IS CONCERNED WE NOTED THAT THE AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.86,663/ - UNDER THE HEAD FUEL EXPENSES ON THE BASIS THAT FUEL CONSUMPTION IS VERY HIGH I.E. 73% IN COMPLETION WITH FREIGHT ITA NO. 733/KOL/2011 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SH. RANJIT KR. SARKAR V. ITO WD - 1 RNJ PAGE 3 RECEIPT. THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT VEHICLE WERE VERY OLD AND THERE WAS LOW MILEAGE AVERAGE WAS REJECTED , W HEN THE ASSESSEE WENT BEFORE CIT(A) . W E NOTED THAT ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT ADDUCE THE SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE SUM OF 86,663/ - AND SIMPLY HE STATED THAT SOMETIMES THE FUEL A RE PURCHASED BY DRIVER AND THEREFORE THE BILLS WERE ALSO LOST. BEFORE US ALSO ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BILLS, IN OUR OPINION, DISALLOWING THE SUM OF 86,663/ - IS VERY HIGH AND WE REDUCE IT AT 43,331/ - . THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF 86,663/ - IS REDUCED TO 43,331/ - . 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 / 0 6 /201 5 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) ( P .K. BANSAL ) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER ) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA , *DKP - 15 / 0 6 / 201 5 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . / APPELLANT SRI RANJIT KR. SARKAR, DHANKAILHAT, P.O. KALIAGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR, PIN 733 129 2 . / RESPONDENT - ITO WARD - 1, P.O. KARNOJORA, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR 3 . / CONCERNED CIT 4 . - / CIT (A) 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6 . / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / ,