M/s Jamadar Travels, Bharuch V. The ITO, Ward -1, Bharuch

ITA 1643/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 137 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0009 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C.K.MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K. PATEL
• Keywords: TDS
• 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; 143(3); 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 21/01/2010 DRAFTED ON: 21/01 /2010 ITA NO.1643/AHD/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S.JAMADAR TRAVELS DANDIA BAZAR BHARUCH VS. THE ITO WARD-1 BHARUCH PAN/GIR NO. : AABFJ 9246 G (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL, A.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.K. MISHRA, SR. D.R. O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-IV, BARODA, DATED 18/03/2004 PASSE D FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,60, 934/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF G ROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN TDS CERTIFICATES. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND GROSS RECEIPTS AS WORKED OUT BY THE FIRM BASED ON TDS CERTIFICATE ITA NO .1643/AHD/2005 M/S.JAMADAR TRAVESL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 2 - ISSUED BY THE COMPANIES WHICH WERE HIRING BASIS FRO M THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE DIFFER ENCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.13,61,182/- AS UNEXPLAINED/UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND MADE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY VIDE ASSESSMENT O RDER DATED 27/02/2004 U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE A SSESSEE FILED RE- CONCILIATION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). HOW EVER, EVEN AFTER PROPER RE-CONCILIATION WITH THE TDS CERTIFICATES, T HE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR UNDERSTATEMENT OF ITS GROSS RECEIPTS BY A SUM OF RS.7,60,934/-. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS ALSO ADMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE G ROSS RECEIPTS WERE UNDERSTATED TO THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL DIFFERENCE WORK ED OUT IN TABLE 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERI NG THE ABOVE FACTS, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,60,934 /- AND DIRECTED TO DELETE THE BALANCE AMOUNT VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WERE CAR RIED OUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/12/2008 FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS.7,60,934/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S.15 3A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ITA NO .1643/AHD/2005 M/S.JAMADAR TRAVESL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 3 - AND THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCLUDED FOR THE PURPO SES OF TAXATION. HE HAS FILED COPY OF THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/12/2008 U/S.153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN S UPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DO UBLE TAXATION IF THE SAME AMOUNT IS ADDED TWICE IN TWO SEPARATE ASSESSME NT ORDERS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONLY ONE ADDITION MAY BE CONSIDERED OF THE SAME AMOUNT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE DID NOT DISPUTE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/12/2008 PASSE D U/S.153A/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT ADDITION TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE ASSESS EE ADMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT NO FURTHER RE-CONCILIATIO N COULD BE FILED EXPLAINING THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,60,934/-. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS, THERE FORE, JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT. WE ACCORDI NGLY CONFIRM THE ADDITION IN THIS APPEAL AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTED FROM THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/12/2008 PASSED U/S.153A/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S.153A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND HAS OFFER ED AN AMOUNT OF ITA NO .1643/AHD/2005 M/S.JAMADAR TRAVESL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 4 - RS.7,60,934/- FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAXATION. IF TH E POSITION IS SO, IT WOULD AMOUNT DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE SAME INCOME CANNOT B E TAXED TWICE. IN VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT EVENT AS NOTED ABOVE, WE DIR ECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITION NOW MAINTAINED IN THIS APPEAL AND THE SAME INCOME SHALL NOT BE TAXED TWICE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DO THE NEEDFUL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST JANUARY-2010 SD/- SD/- ( A.N. PAHUJA ) ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/ 01 /2010 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-IV, BARODA 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH. 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD