Shri Tulshi Ranjan Saha, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 49(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1634/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87707 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY ACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: P B SAHA
• Section: 143(3); 147; 131; 148; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , AM ] I .T.A NO S . 1633 & 1634 /KOL/20 1 0 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 0 2 & 2002 - 03 TULSHI RANJAN SAHA VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER,WD - 49(4), KOLKATA (PAN:AIZPS9891C) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 25 . 0 2 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 . 0 2 .201 5 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI P. B. SAHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SANJAY, ACIT / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM : BOTH T H E S E APPEAL S BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT (A) - XXXII , KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO S . 206 & 205 / CIT(A) - XXXII/07 - 08/49(4)/KOL DATED 1 2 . 02 .20 1 0 . ASSESSMENT S WERE FRAMED BY ITO, WARD - 49(4), KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) /147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 1 - 0 2 AND 2002 - 03 VIDE HIS SEPARATE ORDER S BOTH DATED 31 . 1 2 .20 0 7 . 2. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AMOUNTING TO RS.6,28,126/ - AND RS.5,83,070/ - FOR AYS 2001 - 02 AND 2002 - 03 RESPECTIVELY. 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO AY 2001 - 02 ARE THAT TH E AO NOTICED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS OF R.D.P. CONSTRUCTION (IN SHORT RDP) AT RS.2,39,160/ - , S. R. CONSTRUCTION (IN SHORT SRC) AT RS.63,486/ - AND RS.3,25,480/ - . THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION. SIMIL ARLY, IN AY 2002 - 03, THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF RDP AT RS.1,30,000/ - AND SRC AT RS.4,53,070/ - . THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF HARDWARE UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. MA LAXMI HARDWARE. THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIED MATERIAL TO VARIOUS C ONSTRUCTION COMPANY INCLUDING THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES RDP AND SRC. WHEN THE AO NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT DETAILS OF RDP AND SRC FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, HE FOUND THAT THEY HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THE PAYMENTS MADE TO ASSESSEE BUT THEY HAD CREDITED THE AMOUNTS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY AO IN BOTH THE YEARS WERE REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WHEN THESE WERE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE, HE STATED THAT THE MODE AND MANNER 2 I TA NO S . 1633& 1634/K/2010 TULSHI RANJAN SAHA AY S . 200 1 - 0 2 & 2002 - 03 OF SALE RECEIPTS OUT OF THE PROCEEDS FROM CUSTOMERS NO SEPARATE RECEIPTS ARE ISSUED WHEREAS PAYMENT IS RECEIVED AGAINST OUR SALE MEMO/BILLS. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS NOT MAKING ANY CREDIT SALES RATHER HE IS ONLY GIVING MATERIAL OR MAKING SALES ON RECEIPT OF FULL PAYMENT. W HEN FULL PAYMENTS ARE BEING MADE THEN ON THE BASIS OF THE BILL S IT SELF, THE SAME IS ACKNOWLEDGED AS FULLY PAID AND ARE COUNTER SIGNED BY THE MESSENGERS. ACCORDING TO HIM, CASH SALES ARE RECORDED ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND ACCORDINGLY, CASH ARE CREDITED IN CA SH BOOK. NEITHER THE CIT(A) NOR THE AO ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT EVEN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT SHRI TULSHI RANJAN SAHA, THE ASSESSEE STATED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THESE ARE NOT HIS SIGNATURES BUT THESE ARE SIGNATURES OF EMPLOYEE OR MESSENGER AND THE SIGNATURES ARE IN REGARD TO PAYMENTS AND PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY HIM. HE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT N O OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE OTHER PARTY I.E. RDP AND SRC WERE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. ONCE IT I S A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED THESE SALE RECEIPTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND MATERIAL IS SUPPLIED AND NOTHING REMAINS PAYABLE MEANS THERE IS NO OUTSTANDING PAYMENTS WHICH CAN BE STATED TO HAVE NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , ON MERITS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION AND ALSO CONFIRMING THE SAME. WE DELETE BOTH THE ADDITIONS AND THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5 . ORDE R IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.02.2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27TH FEBRUAR Y , 201 5 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . A PPELLANT SHRI TULSHI RANJAN SAHA, VIP ROAD, BAGUIATI, KOLKATA - 59 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD - 49(4), KOLKATA . 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .