Charangath Velayudhan Jayarajan, Ghaziabad V. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

ITA 1798/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Charangath Velayudhan Jayarajan, an individual engaged in the business of civil contracting, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, which confirmed an addition made by the Assessing Officer. The addition was based on a discrepancy between the total turnover reported by the assessee in his books and the turnover reflected in Form No. 26AS. The assessee argued that the difference was due to various items that were either not certified or included in different assessment years. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reconciliation statement and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300834 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1798/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] Charangath Velayudhan Jayarajan Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. 301, Harshit Bhavan, A-166, Ward – 27(2) Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad Ghaziabad Ghaziabad PAN – AEUPJ 0575 R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Saksham Agrawal, CA Department By : Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 05.06.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 30.11.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which resulted from the difference in total turnover shown by the assessee in its books of account, and the same appearing in Form No. 26AS. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of civil contractor. For the year under consideration, the assessee has shown total turnover at Rs. 4,98,43,684/-. On perusal of Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer found that total receipts on which tax was deducted at source was at Rs. 6,06,82,577/-. The assessee was asked to explain the difference. 4. The assessee filed reply, which did not find favour with the Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 1,08,38,893/-. 5. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee straightaway drew our attention to the following reconciliation statement: 3 Total Turnover other than Work not Certified in P&L Account 4,98,43,684 Work done but not certified already credited in P&L Account 45,86,076 Interest on FDR already included in income from other sources 3,27,320 Total Amount included in P&L Account & offered to tax 5,47,57,080 Add: Service fax included in Form 26AS as transaction reported by deductee inclusive of service tax. 48,10,990 Difference between final Invoices raised in AY 2015-16 included in Form 26AS & work not certified included in income for AY 2014- 15 49,43,476 3,57,400 45,86,076 Service Tax Amount of Invoice reflected in Form 26AS and income already included in A.Y. 2013-14 15,400 Total 5,99,40,870 Total Turnover as per Form 26AS 6,06,82,577 Difference 7,41,707 6. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed such details before both the lower authorities, which were never considered by them. The ld. counsel for the assessee further drew our attention to the relevant documentary evidences brought on record and pointed out that if the details are considered, there would only remain a difference of Rs. 7,41,707/-, for which the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the same may be added back. 4 7. We have carefully considered the reconciliation statement vis-a- vis the relevant documents. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the reconciliation statement and, if found correct, only difference which remained unreconciled should be added back. 8. We further direct the Assessing Officer to consider the applicability of profit rate after examining the reconciliation statement and decide the same afresh after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1798/DEL/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05 th JUNE, 2023. 5 VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Date of dictation Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order