VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL, Raigarh(C.G) V. ITO, WARD- 1, Raigarh(C.G)

ITA 149/BIL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0199 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: G S AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Retraction
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 149/RPR/2014. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO.149/RPR/2014. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06. VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL, THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, RAIGARH. VS. WARD - 1, RAIGARH. PAN A FAPA5201P . APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.S. AGRAWAL. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K. JA IN. DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 - 10 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 ST NOV.2016. O R D E R. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), BILASPUR DATED 18 - 03 - 2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS & THE LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN MAINTAINING ADDITION OF RS.4,84,674/ - OUT OF 8,38,400/ - MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR SO CALLED EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING OPERATION U/S 133A. PRAYED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STOCK AS PER PHYSICAL INVENTORY & AS PER BOOKS OF A/CS WAS EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MAINTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS.4,84,674/ - BE DELETED. 2. BRIEF FACTS O F THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN RETAIL BUSINESS OF BOOKS, STATIONARY AND SPORTS GOODS THROUGH HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/S GYAN MANDIR, RAIGARH. ALSO, HE DERIVES INCOME FROM TRUCK PLYING. RETURN OF INCOME 2 ITA NO. 149/RPR/2014. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 WAS FILED SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,20,140/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A S PER THE NORMS OF ACTION PLAN BEING SU R V E Y CONDUCTED U/S 133A DURING PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO CONCERNED YEAR OF ASSESSMENT AND THE AO COMPLETED T HE ASSESSMENT AT RS.16,24,390/ - BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80CCC AND U/S 80L TOTALLING TO RS.13,350/ - . 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FOLLOWS M ERCANTILE S YSTEM OF A CCOUNTANCY. TH AT IN THIS CASE A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON 18 - 11 - 2004 & 19 - 11 - 2004 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, EXCESS CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.85,735/ - AND EXCESS STOCK WORTH RS.14,49,402/ - WAS FOUND. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK AND CASH, HE VOLUNTARILY MADE SURRENDER OF THE VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK AT RS.14,49,402/ - AND THE EXCESS CASH OF RS.85,735/ - . THAT ON EXAMINATION OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT AND P & L ACCOUNT IT IS FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.5,96,632/ - WAS ONLY DEBITED TO TRADING ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF SOCK SURRENDERED ON SURV E Y AND SIMILARLY A SUM OF RS.6,82,367/ - WAS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS THUS SEEN THAT AS AGAINST THE TOTAL SURRENDER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK AT RS.14,49,402/ - A SUM OF RS.5,96,632/ - ONLY OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN FILED THEREBY RETRACTING TO A SUM OF RS.8,52,770/ - . 4. THE AO MADE ENQUIRY FROM THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT FULLY SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES RESPONSE. HE MADE AN ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK. 5. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER ELABORATELY ANALYSING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,38,400/ - ON 3 ITA NO. 149/RPR/2014. ACCOUNT OF RETRACTION OF SURRENDERED VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY IS CONFIRMED FOR RS.4,84,674/ - . 6. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A P APER BOOK AND COPIES OF VARIOUS RECONCILIATION AND BILLS. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND RECONCILIATION HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 8. UPON HEARING BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSING THE RECORDS I FIND THAT THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) NEED S A PROPER RE - APPRECIATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE SAME NEEDS FACTUAL VERIFICATION WITH THE SURVEY RECORDS, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE I SSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR S T A T ISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF NOV., 2016. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED: 21 ST NOV., 2016. 4 ITA NO. 149/RPR/2014. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL, PROP. GYAM MANDIR, GURUDWARA ROAD, RAIGARH (C.G.). 2. I.T.O., WARD - 1, RAIGARH (C.G.) 3. C.I.T., BILASPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS), BILASPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, RAIPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE.