Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Rewa V. Shri Awtansh Kumar Tiwari, Rewa

ITA 189/JAB/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2157 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 189 /JAB/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.189/JAB/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, REWA. VS. SHRI AWTANSH KUMAR TIWARI, PROP. TIWARI KHAD BHANDAR, 48/12, SEMARIYA REWA. PAN:AFDPT 3023 L (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-2, JABALPUR DATED 29/06/2015 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 03/03/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SIX GROUND OF APPEAL BUT THE SOLE GRIEVANCE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS.1.19 CRORE BY CIT(A) WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF UNRECORDED/UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORD, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F TRADING OF FERTILIZER. RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 26/03/2012 DECLARING INCO ME OF RS.3,82,110/-. APPELLANT BY SHRI V. B. SARGAR, D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI A. P. SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE SHRI SAPAN USRETE, ADVOCATE SHRI K. N. G. PILLAI, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 07/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08/11/2017 I.T.A. NO. 189 /JAB/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 2 CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTIC E U/S 143(2) ISSUED CALLING NECESSARY INFORMATION. ON PERUSAL OF THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED TH AT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM BASF INDIA LIMITED SO MUCH SO THAT PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE AT RS.2,9 2,87,353/- WHEREAS THE SALES SHOWN BY THE COMPANY I.E. BASF INDIA LIMI TED IS RS.1,73,80,789/- . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY ALONG WITH OTH ER ADDITIONS ALSO MADE AN ADDITION FOR CONCEALMENT OF PURCHASES AT RS.1,19 ,06,564/- AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.1,34,96,949/-. THE ASSESSEES APP EAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) GOT PART RELIEF. 4. AGGRIEVED, NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION FOR UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES OF RS.1,19,06,564/-. AT THE OUTSET LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE COMPLETE RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS WITH BASF INDIA LIMITED HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHICH STANDS VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REM AND REPORT CALLED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE REFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THE SOLE ISSUE RELATES TO THE DIFFERENC E IN THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM BASF INDIA LIMITED WHICH WERE NOT TALLYING WITH THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT PROVIDED BY BASF INDIA LIMITED. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE CIT(A), A REMAND REPORT WA S CALLED TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE WHICH DEPICTED THAT NO SUCH VARIANCE WAS THERE IN THE PURCHASES MA DE FROM BASF INDIA LIMITED. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED I.T.A. NO. 189 /JAB/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 3 19/06/2015 PROVIDED TO THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH TH IS ISSUE IN PARA 2 PLACED AT PAGES 28 AND 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS FACT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF NON RECONCILIATION OF CONTRA ENTR IES, PURCHASES RETURN, PAYMENT TRANSFERRED TO ADVANCE ACCOUNT ETC. THE AL LEGED DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,19,06,564/- COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT HAS FINALLY BEEN REDUCED TO NET DIFFERENCE OF ONLY (-RS.11,040/-). THIS FACT HAS B EEN SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE REMAND REPORT ITSELF, BASED ON WHICH CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,16,24,427/- . LEARNED D.R. HAS BEEN UNABLE TO BRING ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS VIS-- VIS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.1 WE, THEREFORE, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE S WAS MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF NON RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SUPPLIER W ITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCERNABLE FROM THE REMAND REPORT. THERE IS HA RDLY ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST THE PURCHASE FIGURE SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF SUPPLIER. WE, THEREFOR E, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/11/2 017 SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:08/11/2017 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., ASST T. REGISTRAR