The DCIT, Circle-9, Ahmedabad V. Shri Kaushik Jayantilal Mehta, Ahmedabad

ITA 1866/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6145 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA SHUKLA

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 1866/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NO. : 1866/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR S: 2008 - 09 DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 9, AHMEDABAD ............APPELLANT VS KAUSHIK JAYANTILAL MEH TA ...........RESPONDENT A - 2/102, MANAGEMENT ENCLAVE TOWER SATELLITE ROAD, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD 380 051 [PAN: AACGOM2776H] APPEARANCES BY ADITYA SHUKLA FOR THE APPELLANT NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 1 6 /0 2 /1 7 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 26 /04 /1 7 O R D E R 1. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE REVENUE , IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21 ST MARCH 2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, BY AFFIXATION, ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 3 . GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT, IN SUBSTANCE, IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 40,86,884, OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS 53,25, 696, ON ACCOUNT OF, WHAT THE REVENUE TERMS AS, SUPPRESSED TRADE RECEIPTS. 4 . THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT WHILE, AS PER INFORMATION I.T.A. NO.: 1866/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 PAGE 2 OF 3 AVAILABLE TO HIM, THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE SH OULD HAVE BEEN RS 1,81,34 ,894 ( RS 67,51,223 FROM SUN MOON ROADWAYS, RS 40,86,884 FROM AMAR TRANSPORT, RS 71,85,910 FROM RAJMOTI ROAD MOVERS AND RS 1,10,877 FROM ASHOK PRAJAPTI AND SAVI CONSTRUCTION CO), HE HAS SHOWN RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT OF R 1,28,09,197 ONLY. IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, HE HAD TAKEN NOTE OF RECEIPTS OF RS 71,85,910 FROM THE TDS CERTIFICATES, WHEREAS ACTUAL CREDIT IN THAT ACCOUNT WAS ONLY RS 2,57,556 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND RECEIPTS OF RS 59,53,752, AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES, WHEREAS ACTUAL CREDIT IN TH AT RESPECT WAS RS 67,51,223 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, HE PICKED UP THE FIGURES SELECTIVELY TO COME TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION ABOUT SUPPRESSED RECEIPT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHO W CAUSE AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS 53,25,697 NOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE S SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM RAJMOTI ROAD MOVERS HAVE BEEN BOOKED AS FOLLOWS: RAJMOTI ROAD MOVERS RS 2,57,551 AMAR TRANSPORT R S 40,86,884 SUN MOON ROADWAYS RS 7,97,481 FREIGHT ACCOUNT RS 17,13,575 DISCREPANCY RS 3,30,455 TOTAL RS 71,85,910 5. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE IS THUS AN ACCOUNTING ERORR IN BOOKING THE CREDITS IN THE RIGHT A CCOUNT, AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS RESTRICTED TO RS 3,30,455 ONLY BUT THAT EXPLANATION DID NOT IMPRESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR WANT OF PROPER EVIDENCE. HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS 53,25,697. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN ACCOUNTING THE RECEIPTS AND THE REAL DIFFERENCE, WHICH CAN BE ADDED, IS ONLY RS 12,38,812. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS 40,86,884 WAS THUS DELETED. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . AS A PLAIN READING OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WOULD SHOW, THE CIT(A) HAS CONDUCTED SOME DIRECT INQUIRIES FROM RAJMOTI ROADMOVERS AND SUN MOON ROADWAYS BUT THE INFORMATION SO GATHERED WAS NOT EVEN CON FRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN THE FINAL RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, BASED ON WHICH IMPUGNED RELIEF IS GIVEN, WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOR HIS REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED ON THESE VITAL I.T.A. NO.: 1866/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008 - 09 PAGE 3 OF 3 DOCUMENTS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I SEE MERIT IN LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S PLEA THAT THE MATTER SHOULD AT LEAST BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONFRONT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BASED ON WHICH IMPUGNED RELIEF IS GRANTED, COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF INQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE CIT(A) AND, THEREAFTER, DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AND AFTER GIVING YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES. I DIRECT SO. 7 . I N THE RESULT, T HE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 26 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 . SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER) DATED: AHMEDABAD, THE 26 TH DAY OF APRI L , 2017. COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES , AHMEDABAD