Leeladhar Khodiyar, V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

ITA 166/JAB/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1144 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V B SARGOR
• Assessee Lawyers: A P SHRIVASTAVA; SAPAN USRETHA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; TDS
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO.166/JAB/2014 A.Y. : 2007-08 SHRI LEELADHAR KHODIYAR, PROP. M/S.SHRIRAM CONSTRUCTION, SHAHDOL. VS ACIT, CIRCLE KATNI APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. : AJQPK1250J APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.P.SHRIVASTAVA AND SHRI SAPAN USRETHA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.B.SARGOR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 28 . 0 5 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 . 0 5 .201 5 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), JABALPUR, DATED 17.07.2014 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT QUASHING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS ON THE VAGUE REASON. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT QUASHING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO NEW MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD AND AS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND ALL THE RECEIPT AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE EXAMINED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. -: 3: - 3 3. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 70,14,070/- ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT FROM TCIL WHEREAS NO SUCH RECEIPT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 70,14,070/- ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT FROM TCIL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT CONTRACT IS RECEIVED FROM THE TCIL BY WAY OF BANKING CHANNEL AND HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE AO WITHOUT PROPER EXAMINATION. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING T HE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. IN THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT, AS PER THE CONTRACT ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GR OSS RECEIPT OF RS. 2,73,14,054/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE CAS E RECORDS, IT -: 4: - 4 WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESS CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 1,68,56,562/- AND AS PER THE RECORD, ACTUAL REC EIPT OF RS. 4,29,46,031/- FROM TCIL. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENE D AND AFTER VERIFICATION, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND THE AO VERIFIED THE TOTAL WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND WORK ALLOTTED TO TCIL BY MPRRDA WAS ONLY RS. 3,89,59,859 /-. THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE ACCOUNT AND AS PER THE CONTRACT , THE TOTAL CONTRACT WORK DONE FROM TCIL WAS RS. 3,29,10,264/- IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE TDS C ERTIFICATE AND THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SU PPRESSED THE RECEIPTS FROM TCIL TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 70,14,0 70/-. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 70,1 4,070/-. 5. THE MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HA S DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONE R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION FROM TCIL AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SOME ORIGINAL TDS CERTIFICAT ES AND LATER ON THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SOME OF THE CER TIFICATES BEFORE THE AO. AND THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE LD. CIT( A) HAS NOT -: 5: - 5 ADMITTED THOSE CERTIFICATES AND DISMISSED THE APPEA L. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THE TDS CERTIFICATES FROM TCIL. THEREFORE, WE ADMIT THI S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE US AND THE MATTER IS RESTO RED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CALL FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO REGARDING GENUINENESS AND AUTHEN TICITY OF THE TDS CERTIFICATES OF CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH MAY, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :28 TH MAY , 2015. CPU* 4106