ITO, Tuticorin V. N.Rajasekaran, Tuticorin

ITA 1446/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4428 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NETHRAPAL IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Revised return; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.1446/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, TUTICORIN [PAN ABLPR 2690B] VS. SHRI. N. RAJASEKARAN, B/6/2A, FIRST FLOOR, EAST CAR STREET, TUTICORIN 628 002. ( !' / APPELLANT) ( #$!' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. M.S. NETHRAPAL, IRS, JCIT. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI.V.S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 29-05-2017 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-05-2017 % / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AG AINST AN ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-1, MADURAI. 2. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH A DELAY OF THIRTEE N DAYS. REVENUE HAS FILED A CONDONATION PETITION. THOUGH T HE APPEAL HAS ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: BEEN FILED WITH A DELAY OF THIRTEEN DAYS, CONDONATI ON PETITION IS ONLY FOR TWELVE DAYS. NEVERTHELESS THE REASONS SHOWN IN THE CONDONATION PETITION SEEMS TO BE JUSTIFIED. LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. THE REFORE DELAY IS CONDONATION AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT REV ENUE WAS AGGRIEVED ON A CANCELLATION OF THE REASSESSMEN T BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HOLDING THE R EOPENING U/S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) AS BAD. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE NOT JUSTIF IED. 4. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A CIVIL CONTRACTOR HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YE AR DECLARING INCOME OF E7,95,180/- ON 30.09.2009. UPON RECEIPT OF A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 14.10.2010 DECLARING INCOME OF E9,43,560/-. THE ASSESSMENT WA S THEREAFTER COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 29.12. 2011 AFTER A NUMBER OF HEARINGS. IN SUCH ASSESSMENT LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS. ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: INCOM E RETURNED E9,43,560 ADD:1) A SUM OF RS.15,11, 493 HAS BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS FLOORING WAGES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM WERE EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE T O THE L.F.45 TO 50. I T IS SEEN THAT A BILL WORTH RS.95,305 IN THE NAME OF ARUMUGAM DATED IN MARCH 2008 IS INCORPORATE D IN THE LEDGER. WHEN THIS DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, HE AGREED TO ADD A SUM OF RS.95,305/-TO THE TOTAL INCOME. HENCE, THIS EXPEN SES IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. E95,305 ADD: 2) A SUM OF RS.5,24,485 HAS BEEN DEBITED TO PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS PLUMBING WAGES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM WERE EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE T O THE L.F.108 TO 114. IT IS SEEN THAT TWO BILLS WORTH E10 5580 IN THE NAME OF EDISION DATED IN MARCH 2008 AND RS.52150/- IN THE NAME OF ANAND DATED IN MARCH ?008 ARE INCORPORATED IN THE LEDGER. WHEN THIS DEFECT WA S POINTED OUT TO THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, HE AG REED TO ADD A SUM OF RS.157730 TO THE TOTAL INCOME. HENCE, THIS EXPENSES IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. E1,57,730 ADD: 3) A SUM OF RS.28,21,976 HAS BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS CENTERING WAGES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED' IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM WERE EXAMINED WIT H REFERENCE TO THE 'LF.11 TO 15. IT IS SEEN THAT A B ILL WORTH RS.79,090 IN THE NAME OF SIVA DATED IN MARCH 2008 IS INCORPORATED IN THE LEDQER. WHEN THIS DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, H E AGREED TO ADD A SUM OF RS.79;090 TO THE TOTAL INCOME HENCE, THIS EXPENSES IS DISALLOWED ARID ADDED TO TH E TOTAL INCOME E79,090 TOTAL INCOME ----------------- E12,75,685 OR 12,75,690 --------------- IN THIS ASSESSMENT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BANK ACCOUNT COPY, BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR PERUSAL. ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: 5. THEREAFTER ON 22.01.2014, A NOTICE FOR REOPENING U/ S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF E1,55,3 9,607/- FROM ONE M/S. PITCHANDI POORANAMALAI AMMAL TRUST ON WHICH T DS OF E3,20,229/- WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WHICH WAS NOT D ISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TH IS WAS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS WHICH WAS THE ANNUAL TAX STATEMENT U/S. 203AA OF THE ACT. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, C ONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM M/S. PITCHANDI POORANAMALAI AMMAL TRUST WAS NOT ADM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN. IN ADDITION TO TH IS AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAD CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF E24,00,0 00/- FROM ONE M/S. SIMLA AGENCIES BUT IN THE TABLE CALLED TAX DEDUC TED/COLLECTED AT SOURCE GIVEN UNDER THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INC OME FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN, WHAT WAS ADMITTED AS CONTRACT RECEIPT F ROM M/S. SIMLA AGENCIES WAS ONLY E2,40,000/-. THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS OMISSION TO ACCOUNT E21,60,000/- OF CONTRACT RECE IPTS FROM M/S. SIMLA AGENCIES. 6. PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, ASSES SEE FILED ANOTHER RETURN ON 26.04.2014 DECLARING VERY SAME IN COME WHICH WAS SHOWN BY HIM IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 14.10.2 010. ASSESSEE ALSO OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING THROUGH A LETTER DATED 26.09.2014. AS PER ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 5 -: THE ASSESSEE RECEIPT OF E1,55,39,607/- FROM M/S. PI TCHANDI POORANAMALAI AMMAL TRUST WAS AN ITEM WHICH WAS VE RIFIED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE I N THIS REGARD WAS ACCEPTED. IN SO FAR AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM SHRI . SIMLA AGENCIES WAS CONCERNED, CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT E24, 00,000/- WAS CORRECTLY AS SHOWN PART OF ITS CONTRACT RECEIPTS, AND THE SUM OF E2,40,000/- MENTIONED IN THE LIST GIVEN UNDER THE COMPUTATION OF STATEMENT WAS ONLY A CLERICAL MISTAKE, WHICH HAD NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE INCOME. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, HE HAD NOT SU PPRESSED ANY MATERIAL FACTS AT THE TIME OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT A ND NO NEW DOCUMENT HAD COME TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMING TO AN OPINION THAT THERE WAS ANY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. 7. HOWEVER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED B Y THE ABOVE REPLY. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS ON RECORD , A LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON DATED 25.07.2012 SUBSEQUENT TO RE GULAR ASSESSMENT DATED 29.12.2011, WHICH REVEALED CERTAIN CONTRACT RECEIPTS NOT ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OF FICER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S . PITCHANDI POORANAMALAI AMMAL TRUST CORRECTLY. FURTHER, ACCO RDING TO HIM IN ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 6 -: SCHEDULE TDS 2 OF THE REVISED RETURN, ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF E2,40,000/- ONLY FROM M/S. SIMLA AGENCIES. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, REOPENING WAS DONE ON VALID GROUNDS. 8. THEREAFTER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE REA SSESSMENT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. H E CONSIDERED CONTRACT RECEIPTS FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AT E5,62,89,789/- AGAINST A SUM OF E5,57,89,789/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE IN HIS REVISED RETURN. DIFFERENCE OF E5,00,000/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS TO THIS EXTENT, RECEIVED FROM M/S. SIMLA AGENCIES W HICH WAS OMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, HE APPLIED 8% ON SUCH CONTRACT RECEIPTS TO ARRIVE AT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. REASONS WHY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLIED A GP RATE WERE AS UNDER:- (I) IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. SIMLA AGENCIES, ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AS A CREDITOR FOR E2,00,000/- WHEREAS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. SIMLA AGENCIES WAS A DEB TOR FOR E19,25,600/-. (II) IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. PITCHANDI POORANAMALAI AMMAL TRUST ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AS A DEBTOR FOR E1,47,77, 977/- WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS, THEY WERE A CREDIT OR FOR E1,47,72,977/-. (III) IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ITSELF, A NUMBER OF DEFECTS WERE PICKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS FOR WHICH ADDITIONS WERE MADE. ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 7 -: (IV) THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH ORIGINAL RETU RN AND THE ONE FILED WITH THE REVISED RETURN. 9. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SUM OF E1,55,39,607/- RECEIVED FROM ON E M/S. PITCHANDI POORANAMALAI AMMAL TRUST WAS ONLY AN ADVANCE AND H ENCE NOT SHOWN AS PART OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS. AS PER THE AS SESSEE WHEN THE RE- ASSESSMENT WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED, LD. ASSESSING OF FICER DID HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITIONS FOR THIS. FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM M/S. SIMLA AGENCIES, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT ONLY E19,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS DURI NG THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONT RACTORS WERE LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS EVEN ON ADVANCE PAYMENTS, BUT A CONT RACTEE COULD ACCOUNT FOR SUCH ADVANCE PAYMENTS AS ITS INCOME ON LY WHEN THE WORK WAS DONE. AS FOR THE DIFFERENCES IN THE BALANCE S HEETS, CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MA DE NO ADDITION ON THIS ASPECT ALSO. IN ANY CASE AS PER THE ASSESSEE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HA D VERIFIED ALL THESE ASPECTS AND THEREFORE THE REOPENING WAS BASED ON A CHANGE OF OPINION AND NOT ON ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL. FURTHER , AS PER THE ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 8 -: ASSESSEE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REJECTED TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE REASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY VALID REASONS. 10. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT LD. ASSES SING OFFICER HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE RESORTED TO AN ESTIMATION OF PROF ITS. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THA T THERE WAS NO ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ANY OF THE ISSUES FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THE DIFFERENC E OF E5,00,000/- IN THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF M/S. SIMLA AGENCY, AS PER THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RESULTED ONLY IN CORRESPONDING INCREASE TO THE TURNOVER AND NOT TO THE INCOME. T HUS, HE HELD THE REOPENING TO BE INVALID AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDE R OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 11. NOW BEFORE ME, LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE STRON GLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A LETTER FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE 25.07.2012 BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER THE COMPL ETION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, WHEREIN IT MADE A FURTHER CLAIM OF REF UND OF E3,20,229/- BEING TDS NOT CLAIMED BY IT EARLIER DURING THE COUR SE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 9 -: SUCH LETTER CLEARLY WENT TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HA D CONTRACT RECEIPTS, BEYOND WHAT IT HAD STATED IN THE RETURN. AS PER LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE SHEETS AND AUDIT REPORTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH O RIGINAL RETURN AND ALONGWITH THE REVISED RETURN AND THIS CLEARLY INDI CATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT RELIABLE. CONTENTION OF THE L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSM ENT PRIME FACIE REASONS WERE ENOUGH, AND IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO REACH A FINAL CONCLUSION REGARDING ESCA PEMENT OF INCOME. AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT WERE NO ADDITIONS MADE ON ANY THE SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR WHICH REOPENING WAS R ESORTED TO, WAS INCORRECT. ACCORDING TO HIM, BOOKS WERE REJECTED F OR PROPER AND CORRECT REASONS. ADDITIONS WAS MADE IN THE TURNOV ER FOR SUPPRESSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF E5,00,000/- FROM SHRI. SIMLA AGENCIES. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT LD. AS SESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE DIFFERENCES IN THE BALANCE SHEET S AND THEREFORE NEVER REACHED ANY OPINION. CONTENTION OF THE LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT REOPENING WAS NOT DONE DUE TO ANY CHANGE OF OPINION BUT ONLY BASED ON TANGIBLE MATERIAL WH ICH WAS WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECIS ION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CHENNAI VS. TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LTD. ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 10 -: (2011) 133 ITD 79 AND THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING CO. P. LTD VS. CIT 247 ITR 818. 12. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, IN REPLY, SUBMITTED THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MADE AN ASSESS MENT MAKING DISALLOWANCES WHEREVER HE FOUND IT NECESSARY. THUS, AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO BA LANCE SHEETS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A REASON FOR REOPENING O R FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS. IN ANY CASE AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE THERE WAS NO ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ANY O F THE ITEMS FOR WHICH REOPENING WAS RESORTED TO. FURTHER, ACCORD ING TO HIM, LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.07.2012 CITED BY THE LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE EVEN IF CONSIDERED AS A FRESH MATER IAL COULD AT THE BEST BE A REASON TO SUSPECT AND NOT A REASON TO BELIEVE . THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WA S JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INVALID, AS W ELL AS DELETING THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS. 13. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY ME AT PARA 4. IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED BY THE ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 11 -: LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNT COPY, BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND VERIFIED BY HIM. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MENTIO NED ANYTHING REGARDING ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BALANCE SHEET S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.09.2009 AND 14.10.2010. HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY MENTIONS ADMITTED INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AS E9,43,560/-, WHICH WAS THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN. THUS THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT LD . ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED THE REVISED RETURN WHILE DOING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. SINCE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ME NTION ANYTHING REGARDING THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED ON 30.09.2009 WHICH REFLECTED AN INCOME OF E7,95,180/-, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HE DID NO T CONSIDER THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH WIT H SUCH ORIGINAL RETURN. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ON 25.07.2012, IT HAD FILED A LETTER CLAIMING REFUND OF TDS E3,20,229/- MADE BY M/S. PITCHANDI POORNAMALAI AMMAL TRUST. THEREFORE IN MY OPINION, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 22.01.2014, WAS HAVING TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN THE N ATURE OF LETTER DATED 25.02.2012 FROM THE ASSESSEE REFLECTING RECEIPT OF E1,55,39,607/- FROM M/S. PITCHANDI POORNAMALAI AMMAL TRUST. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT WHEN REASSESSMENT WAS FINALLY COMPLETED, LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 12 -: ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID AM OUNT WAS AN ADVANCE AND NOT A PART OF ITS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, IN MY OPINION, THERE WAS A FRESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN THE NATURE OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WITH THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER, JUSTIFYING THE REOPENING. FURTHER AS ALREADY NOTED BY ME IN THE O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE ORIGIN AL RETURN AND THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH SUCH RETURN. THERE WERE CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCES IN THESE BALANCE SHEETS AS DEPICTED IN THE TABLE HEREUNDER:- PARTICULARS AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN AS PER REVISED RETURN TOTAL OF BALANCE SHEET 1,98,18,028 75,51,689 PROPRS CAPITAL 11,79,268 12,47,075 SUNDRY CREDITORS 1,85,97,260 58,6 8,175 TURNOVER 5,22,05,315 1,57,89,789 CLOSING STOCK 1,10,17,765 1,04,15,123 IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT , ALSO BE FAULTED FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN ANY CASE, A SUM OF E5,00,000/- BEING CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM M/S. SIMLA AGENCY WAS ADMITTEDLY OMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CONTRACT TURNOVER , IN HIS ORIGINAL AS WELL REVISED RETURN. THUS, IN MY OPINION REASONS FOR WHICH REOPENING WAS RESORTED TO BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WERE R ELEVANT. LD. ITA NO. 1446/MDS/2016. :- 13 -: ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATING THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AT 8%. THERE WAS OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN CORRECTLY SHOWING ITS C ONTRACT RECEIPTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. I THEREFORE HAVE NO HESITATIO N IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S). I HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT WAS VALIDITY INITIATED AND THE REJECT ION OF BOOKS WAS JUSTIFIED. I REINSTATE THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 31ST MAY, 2017 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,- / CIT(A) 5. )./ 0 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. /12 / GF