Kripa Sindhu Santra, Hooghly V. ITO, Ward-2(3), Hooghly, Hooghly

ITA 1649/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 164923514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMNATH GHOSH
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 1 649 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 20 0 8 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1 649 / KOL / 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 7 - 20 0 8 KRIPA SINDHU SANTRA,............... ........ ....... .... ............. .. .APP ELL ANT C/ O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SEVEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY - 712 105 [PAN : A K UPS 4786 K ] - VS. - INCOME TAX OFFICER , ........................... ................... ... . RESPONDENT WARD - 2 ( 3 ), HOO GHLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, G.T. ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O. CHINSURAH, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY - 712 101 APPEARANCES BY: S HRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE S MT. RANU BISWAS , J CIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 2 8 , 2 01 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 28 , 201 4 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXX I I , KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. I.T.A. NO . 1 649 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 20 0 8 PAGE 2 OF 4 177 / CIT(A) - XXX I I / 20 1 3 - 1 4/HG/R&T/KOL D ATED 30 . 0 6 .201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 . 2. S HRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE , REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. RANU BISWAS, JCIT, SR. D.R. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THA T THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN MOTOR CYCLE AND SPARE PARTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OBTAINED THE BANK RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, GOP INAGAR BRANCH, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.2007 TO THE BANK AT RS.14,18,489/ - , WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS IT WAS SHOWN AT RS.12,86,489/ - . AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TR EATED RS.1,32,000/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESESE HAD SPECIFICALLY RECONCILE D THE DIFFERENCE TO SUBMIT THAT THERE WAS NO QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLOSING STOCK AS DISCLOSED TO THE BANK AND AS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DIFFERENCE WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE VALUATION GIVEN TO THE BANK. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN FIGURE OF APPROXIMATE VALUATION TO THE BANK, WHEREA S IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE PROPER VALUATION WAS DONE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY, NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. HE PLACED BEFORE ME THE COPY OF THE RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE BANK AND AS S HOWN IN HIS BOOKS AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS ALSO PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS QUANTITATIVE CHART WAS ALSO FOUND AT PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. - NEO CARBONS P. LTD. IN ITAT NO. 191 OF 2013 IN G.A. NO. 3286 OF 2013 DATED 04.03.2014, WHEREIN IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO NARRA TION IN I.T.A. NO . 1 649 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 20 0 8 PAGE 3 OF 4 THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE JUST BECAUSE THERE IS VARIATION IN THE VALUATION, IT WOULD NOT LEAD TO ANY ADDITION. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT GRANTED THE ASSESSEE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT. 4. IN REPLY, LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). LD. SR. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION HAD NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) MORE SPECIF ICALLY AT PAGE 5 SHOWS THE CHART OF THE ITEMS, QUANTITY, VALUE IN THE BOOKS AND VALUE DECLARED TO THE BANK . C LEARLY QUANTITY DOES NOT VARY. ADMITTEDLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME - TAX, THE CLOSING STOCK IS TO BE VALUED AT MARKET PRICE OR COST, WHICHEVER IS LO WER. THE ASSESSEE HAVING SPECIFICALLY VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK IN HIS BOOKS BY FOLLOWING THE ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES, THE SAME CANNOT LEAD TO AN ADDITION JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A DIFFERENT VALUATION TO THE BANK ESPECIALLY WHEN THE QUANTITY OF THE STOCK HAS NOT VARIED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON THIS COUNT IN THE FACTS OF ASSESSEE S CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) STAN DS DELETED. 6. IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C, IT IS NOTICED THAT SUCH CLAIM IS NOT RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THOUGH SUCH CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E ISSUE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C IS RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND RE - ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESESE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. I.T.A. NO . 1 649 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 20 0 8 PAGE 4 OF 4 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH NOV EMBER , 2014. SD/ - GEORGE MATHAN ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 28 TH D AY OF NOVE MBER , 201 4 COPIES TO : (1 ) KRIPA SINDHU SANTRA, C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SEVEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY - 712 105 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), HOOGHLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, G.T. ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O. CHINSURAH, P.S . CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY - 712 101 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .