M/s J. Parui & Brothers, South 24 Parganas V. ITO, Ward-26(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1523/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3325 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: M D SHAH
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1523/KOL/2016 M/S J.PARUI & BROTHERS A.Y.201 0-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH B KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & DR.A.L.SAIN I, AM ] ITA NO.1523/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S J.PARUI & BROTHERS -VERSUS- I.T.O., WARD -26(1) KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN: AACFJ 4158 N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI M.D.SHAH, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S.DASGUPTA, ADDL. CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.07.2018. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/08/2018 ORDER PER S.S.GODARA, JM: THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y.2010-11 ARISES AGAI NST THE CIT(A)-7, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 16.05.2016 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.385/CIT (A)-7/WARD-26(1)/15-16, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. IT EMERGES AT THE OUTSET THAT BOTH THE LOWER AU THORITIES HAVE DISPUTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RECONCILIATION OF PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF SEVEN PARTIES REGARDING ITS BUSINESS IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS OF VARIOUS COMPANIES AS RETAILER/DISTRIBUTOR. THE SAID SEVEN PARTIES ARE M/S SYNERGY (I) MARKETING PVT. LT D., LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD., KARNATAKA SOAP & DETERGENT, SHALIMAR CHEMICALS WORK S LTD., MATRUMAL DHANNALAL OIL MILLS, NIRMA LTD., AND DEORALA FOODS INTERNATIO NAL LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DISPUTED ASSESSEES PURCHASES FROM THESE SEVEN PARTIES IN ENTIRETY. THE SOLE ISSUE THAT AROSE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT WA S ABOUT RECONCILIATION OF THE CORRECT PURCHASES FIGURES RESULTING IN CORRESPONDING ADDITI ON OF RS.21,74,099/-, RS.1,60,04,362/-, RS.8,84,703/-, RS.30,62,074/-, RS .27,50,429/-, 48,83,536/- AND RS.21,32,868/-. (PARTYWISE) RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO.1523/KOL/2016 M/S J.PARUI & BROTHERS A.Y.201 0-11 2 3. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES ARE AD IDEM DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING IN TAKING US TO THE LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS MAKING IT EVIDENT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD IN FACT CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE ASSESSEES CASE THEREIN WAS THAT IT HAD MADE ALL OF ITS PURCHASES FROM M/S. SYN ERGY (I)MARKETING PVT. LTD BUT IT HAD BY MISTAKE INCORPORATED SOME OF THE PURCHASE CL AIM AGAINST ANOTHER PARTY M/S. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDIA LTD.. SO WAS ITS PLEA REGAR DING THE SECOND ENTITY M/S. L OREAL INDIA PVT. LTD AS WELL WHEREIN IT SUCCESSFULLY GOT CONFIRMED PURCHASES OF RS.1,60,04,362/- TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,59,50,271/-. WE DEAL WITH THESE TWO PARTIES ON TEST CHECK BASIS ONLY SINCE INVOLVING MAJOR PURCHAS E AMOUNTS AS COMPARED TO THE ABOVE OTHER ENTITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SECTION 133(6) PROCESS TO M/S MAHESH EDIBLE OILS (I)LTD WHICH REMAINED UNRESPONDE D. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 22.01.2016 TO THIS EFFECT. IT I S IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION INTER ALIA DISALLOWING/ADDING THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES IN ALL PARTIES CA SES MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME STOOD UNVERIFIED IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS WELL . 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. SUFFICE TO SAY, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASESSEE HAS RECONCILED ALMOST ITS ENTIRE PURCHASES IN CASE OF THE FORMER TWO MAIN SUPPLIERS M/S. SYNERGY (I)MARKETING PVT. LTD AND M/ S LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD INVOLVING SUMS OF RS.21,74,099/- AND 1,60,04,362/-( LATTER FIGURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,59,50,271/-) DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCE EDINGS. THE CIT(A) S ORDER REJECTING ITS CORRESPONDING ARGUMENTS THEREFORE DOE S NOT DESERVE TO BE CONCURRED WITH ON THIS COUNT ALONE SINCE THE SAID DIFFERENCE NOWH ERE EXISTED. HE APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF ITS PURCHASES CLAIM REGARDING M/S. MA HESH EDIBLE OILS LTD WHICH WAS APPARENTLY AN INCORRECT ONE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE RE CONCILIATION. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS ESSENTIALLY AN ISSUE OF RECONCILIATION OF PURCHASE FIGURES BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND ITS ABOVE SUPPLIERS. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE T HAT LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE-EXAMINES TH E ENTIRE ISSUE AFRESH BY GRANTING ONE MORE INNINGS TO THE ASSESSEE IN CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.1523/KOL/2016 M/S J.PARUI & BROTHERS A.Y.201 0-11 3 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24.08.2018. SD/- SD/- [DR.A.L.SAINI ] [ S.S.GODARA ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24.08.2018. [RG SR.PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.M/S J.PARUI & BROTHERS, AMTALA, P.O.KANYANAGAR, 2 4, PARGANAS SOUTH, PIN : 743398. 2. I.T.O., WARD-26(1), KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T.(A)-7, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T-9, KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES