ACIT, CHENNAI V. Gomatesh Granites, CHENNAI

ITA 1441/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86237 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1441/MDS/2013 ( ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 -2007) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE XV, CHENNAI 600 034 . ( /APPELLANT) VS. M/S. GOMATESH GRANITES, NO.76, CATHEDRAL ROAD, CHENNAI 600 086 . [PAN : AAAFG3303J] ( /RESPONDENT) # $ % / APPELLANT BY : SMT. RUBY GEORGE, IRS, CIT. &'# $ % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. PHILIP GEORGE, ADVOCATE ( ) $ *+ /DATE OF HEARING : 19.01.2015. ,-'! $ *+ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.01.2015. / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE O RDER DATED 28.03.2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(APPEALS)-XII, CHENNAI A ND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIE VED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF ` 1.61 CRORES -2- ITA NO.1441/MDS/2013 . MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELATING TO THE DIFFE RENCE IN THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF A CREDITOR. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . WE NOTICE THAT THE REVENUE HAS CARRIED OUT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPER ATIONS U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 26.7.2006 IN THE HANDS OF DODANAVAR GROU P OF CASES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ONE OF THE COMPANIES OF THAT GROU P. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FROM THE CASH BOOK SEIZED AT THE TI ME OF SEARCH THAT THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER CONC ERN NAMED M/S DODDANAVAR BROTHERS WAS SHOWN AS ` 12,89,881/- AS ON 31.3.2006. THE CASH BOOK PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD FROM 3.12.200 5 TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, IN THE BALANCE SHEET THE OUTSTAND ING BALANCE AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID PARTY WAS SHOWN AS ` 1,74,48,075/- AS ON 31.3.2006. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED TH E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FIGURES CITED ABOVE, I.E. ` 1,61,58,194/- (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ` 1,16,58,194/-) AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DELETED THE SAID ADDITION AN D HENCE THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF LD CIT(APPEALS) SH OWS THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE CA SH BOOK SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS A PETTY CASH BOOK, WHICH NORMAL LY DOES NOT -3- ITA NO.1441/MDS/2013. CONTAIN JOURNAL ENTRY TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER HE HAS NOTICED THAT THE CREDITOR CITED ABOVE ALSO BELONG TO THE SAME GROUP AND SAME SET OF EMPLOYEES WERE MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF BOTH THE CO MPANIES. FURTHER THE ABOVE SAID PARTY, M/S DODDANAVAR BROTHE RS HAS SHOWN THE ASSESSEE AS A DEBTOR AND HAS DISCLOSED THE OUTSTAND ING BALANCE AS ` 1,76,41,469/-, WHICH WAS HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT DIS CLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THIS ADDITION. 4. FROM THE FORGOING DISCUSSIONS, IT MAY BE NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY COMPARING THE ROUGH CASH BOOK WITH THE BALANCE SHEET. THERE SHOU LD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE ROUGH CASH BOOK IS A TEMPORARY REG ISTER MAINTAINED BY THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT. FURTHER IT IS NOT THE CAS E OF THE REVENUE THAT ANY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWN IN THE ROUGH CASH BOO K WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MAIN CASH BOOK. IN THE ABSENC E OF SUCH A FINDING, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ROUGH CASH BOOK CANNOT FORM A BASIS FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. EVEN OTHER WISE, WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS COMPARED THE BALANCE A VAILABLE WITH THE -4- ITA NO.1441/MDS/2013. OTHER PARTY AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAS RENDERED HIS DE CISION. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(APPEALS). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 19 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( .. ) (B.R. BASKARAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2 /DATED:19.01.2015. K.V 3 $ &*4 5'* /COPY TO: 1. #/ APPELLANT 2. &'# / RESPONDENT 3. ( 6* ( )/CIT(A) 4. ( 6* /CIT 5. 78 &* 9 /DR 6. 8: ;) /GF