Sri Purna Chandra Maiti, Purba Medinipur V. ACIT, Cir-Haldia, Purba Medinipur

ITA 1442/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4075 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GYASUDDIN
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1442/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1442/KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 SHRI PURNA CHANDRA MAITI,.......................... .................................APPELLANT SHERPUR, TELANGA BARH, CONTAI, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 401 [PAN: AEVPM 0604 G] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ......................RESPONDENT CIRCLE HALDIA, BASUDEVPUR, P.O. KHANJAN CHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 602 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI MANISH TIWARI, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE MD. GYASUDDIN, JCIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 19, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 21, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXIII, KOLKAT A DATED 02.04.2014 AND THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.10,30,184/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CO NFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN GROSS RECE IPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AS A LABOUR CONTRACTOR. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 24.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,07,084/-. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIO N AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF AIR AND TDS DETAILS AS WELL AS CONFI RMATIONS RECEIVED FROM SOME OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THE GROSS I.T.A. NO. 1442/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 5 CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,40,18,272/- AS AGAINST THE GROSS R ECEIPTS OF RS.2,29,88,088/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PR OFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN/RECONCILE THIS DIFFERENCE AND SINCE THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO DO SO, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.10,30,184/- WAS ADDED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE SAME A S HIS UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 15.12.2011. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3), AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,30,1 84/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNDISCL OSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE UNACC OUNTED RECEIPTS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND ONLY T HE PROFIT ELEMENT THEREOF COULD BE ADDED IN HIS HANDS. IN THIS REGARD , IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PROFIT OF 3% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS WAS ESTIMATED BY HIS PREDEC ESSOR FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND ACCORDINGLY IT WAS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE BE RESTRICTED T O 3% OF RS.10,30,184/-. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEP TABLE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND HE PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITI ON OF RS.10,30,184/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FOLLOWING REA SONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 3.1 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 3.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,30,184/- AS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO FUR NISH ANY RECONCILIATION OR EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE HIG HER RECEIPTS AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO NO SPECIFIC P ARTY WISE RECONCILIATION OF RECEIPTS HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY TH E APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD MERELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF M Y LD. PREDECESSOR IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR THE IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREIN PROFIT OF 3% WAS I.T.A. NO. 1442/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 3 OF 5 CONSIDERED TO BE REASONABLE ESTIMATE IN THE APPELLA NT'S CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE ENTIRE TURNOVER C ANNOT BE ADDED AND PROFIT MARGIN AS CONSIDERED REASONABLE BY MY PREDECESSOR SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR DETERMINING UNDIS CLOSED INCOME. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT'S ARE MISP LACED. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURN ISHED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR BILLS/VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF T HE PROFIT DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED PROFIT @ 8% ON THE TURNOVER DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS LATER ON RESTRICTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO 3%. THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE DIFFERENT. UNL IKE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE TURNOVER ITSELF HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE CORRECTLY DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED BY /AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATI ON REGARDING THE UNDISCLOSED DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPTS. I T IS NOT A CASE WERE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC. WERE NOT PRODUCED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INFERRED THAT ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING THE RECEIPTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEBITED TO T HE P&L A/C. HENCE, THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS WERE ADDED TO THE T OTAL INCOME CORRECTLY. THE ADDITION OF RS.10,30,184/- IS CONFIR MED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE DIFFERENCE OF RS.10,30,184/- POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS COULD HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS), HE DID NOT DO SO KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA RAISED BY HIM TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF PROFIT ELEMENT AT 3% WOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HE HAS CONTENDED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY, THEREFORE, BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSE E TO EXPLAIN/RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE BY SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD . CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RAISED A STRONG OBJECT ION IN THIS REGARD BY POINTING OUT THAT SUFFICIENT AND SPECIFIC OPPORTUNI TY HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO E XPLAIN/RECONCILE THE I.T.A. NO. 1442/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 4 OF 5 DIFFERENCE IN QUESTION. MOREOVER, IT IS ALSO NOTED FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), W HICH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)S IMPUGNED ORDER, TH AT THE DIFFERENCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS NOT AT ALL DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING SPECIFICALLY THAT THE ALLEGATION REGARDING UNDERSTATEMENT OF TURNOVER AS INDICATED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT IN DISPUTE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAME, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO GIVE ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN/RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN GRO SS RECEIPTS AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH ACTUALLY WAS AC CEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPALS). AS REGARDS THE ALTERNAT IVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS WEL L AS BEFORE ME THAT THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE BE RESTRICTED TO THE PRO FIT ELEMENT OF 3%, I FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D.R. THAT WHEN THE RECEIPTS ARE UNDISCLOSED/UNACCOUNTED, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT TH E CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID RECEIP TS IS ALSO UNDISCLOSED/UNACCOUNTED. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RE LEVANT YEAR ARE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO RE BUT SUCH PRESUMPTION BY ESTABLISHING THAT EVEN THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDI TURE HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO DISCHARGE THIS ONUS. I, THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS.10,30,184/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UP HOLDING THE SAME ON THE ISSUE, I DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DECEMBER 21, 2016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 21 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 I.T.A. NO. 1442/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 5 OF 5 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI PURNA CHANDRA MAITI, SHERPUR, TELANGA BARH, CONTAI, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 401 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE HALDIA, BASUDEVPUR, P.O. KHANJAN CHAK, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 602 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XXXIII, KO LKATA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.