M/s. Puro Poultry Farm, Raigad V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1515/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0552 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMITRA BANERJI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . . , BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO.1515/PN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S. PURO POULTRY FARM, SASAVANE, ALIBAUG, MAHARASHTRA 402201 DIST. RAIGAD PAN : AABFP6178P . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD - 3, PANVEL . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARIKRISHAN / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUMITRA BANERJI / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11-05-2016 OF THE CIT(A)-2, THANE RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE DID NOT PRESS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1, 3, & 4 FOR WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDING LY, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING/CONFIRMING PART ADDITION OF PURCHASES RS.78,1 13/- (2,292 +75,821) / DATE OF HEARING :10.10.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:19.10.2016 2 ITA NO.1515/PN/2016 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF POULTRY. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27-09-2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.20,470/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO, ON VERIFICATION OF THIRD PARTY INFORMATION, NOTICED THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNT OF PARTIES, VIS--VIS TH E ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE : SR.NO. DISCREPANCIES AMOUNT 1. M/S. SUMANGAL TRADERS (1313953-1045593-64500 (FREIGHT) RS.2,03,860/ - 2. M/S. PRABHAT HATCHERIES (1547946-1545654) RS.2,292/ - 3. M/S. PURO HATCHERIES (825288-749467) RS.75,821/ - TOTAL RS.2,81,973/ - IN ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESS EE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,81,973/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE 5. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE 3 PARTIES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,292/ - IN CASE OF M/S. PRABHAT HATCHERIES AND RS.75,821/- IN THE CASE OF M/S. PURO HATCHERIES, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ABOVE 2 ADDITIONS TOTALLING TO RS.78,113/-. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE PURCHASES ARE FROM THE SISTER CONCERNS OF THE AS SESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT ASKED FOR ANY RECONC ILIATION AND ON THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNTS HE HA S MADE 3 ITA NO.1515/PN/2016 THE ADDITION. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASO N CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES ARE FULLY RECONCILABLE AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSEE C AN DEMONSTRATE BEFORE THE AO OR THE CIT(A) AS THE CASE MA Y BE, THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNTS. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, I FIND THE AO MADE THE A BOVE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY VALID EXPLANATION REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,292/- IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRABHAT HATCHERIES AND RS.75,821/- IN THE C ASE OF M/S. PURO HATCHERIES. I FIND THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDIT ION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE TH E DIFFERENCES. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ABOVE PARTIES ARE THE SISTER CONCER NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS FULLY RECONCILIABLE AND ABSOLUTELY THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. IT IS HIS SUBMISSION THA T GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY HE CAN SUBSTANTIATE THAT THERE IS NO DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ACCOUNTS AND THE SAME IS FULLY RECONCILIA BLE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION REGARDING T HE DISCREPANCY IN THE ABOVE TWO ACCOUNTS AND RECONCILE THE SAME. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 ITA NO.1515/PN/2016 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19-10-2016. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED :19 TH OCTOBER, 2016. '# $# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , /// // $ % / TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // &' % * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - 2, THANE 4. THE CIT- 2, THANE 5. $ %%* , * , SMC BENCH / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH PUNE; 6. 2 / GUARD FILE.