Ashok Kumar Chandak, V. ACIT,

ITA 19/PAT/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1187 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K PAUL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH AGARWAL; A K RASTOGI RAKESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 19/PAT/2016. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA. BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO. 19/PAT/2016. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09. ASHOK KUMAR CHANDAK, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, PATNA. VS. CIRCLE - 6, PATNA. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI A.K. RASTOGI, RAKESH KUMAR & ASHISH AGARW AL. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. PAUL. DATE OF HEARING : 02 - 08 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6 TH SEPT. , 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 2, PATNA DATED 28 - 01 - 2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8, 19,332/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXCESS S TOCK FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT CONDUCTED ON 13 - 09 - 2007 IN WHICH EXCESS STOCK OF RS.8,19,332/ - WAS FOUND. DURING THE ASSESSMENT , THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EXPLANATIO N REGARDING EXCESS OF STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG WITH RECONCILIATION OF STOCKS ON DATE OF SURVEY WHICH WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE AO AND THE EXCESS STOCK 2 ITA NO. 19/PAT/2016. FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,19,332/ - WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXCESS STOCK WAS ARRIVED AT AS PER CPU ON THE DATE OF SURVEY I.E. 13 - 09 - 2007 WHICH WAS NOT COMPLETE ACCOUNT DUE TO WORKING OF PART TIME ACCOUNTANT. THE ASSESSEE MADE FURTHER SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED A RECONCILIATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CALCULATION , DIFFERENCE IN STOCK SHOWN SHORT STOCK OF RS.25,079/ - ONLY. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT SATISFIED. HE HELD AS UNDER : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCES TO SUPPO RT HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ISSUE OF INCOMPLETE ACCOUNTS WAS RAISED IN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY. WHEN ASKED TO FILE A COPY OF STATEMENT, THE AR SAID THAT IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE. HENCE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNTS ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND IN SURVEY IS UPHELD AND ALL GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 5 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 6 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECOR DS. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS OF RECONCILIATION WHICH SHOWED THAT ONLY SHORTAGE OF RS.25,079/ - EXISTED. HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED THE SAME WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN TH E SA ME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE VALUED THE STOCK ON MRP WHEREAS THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF THE STOCK BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT COST AND NET REALIZABLE VALUE WHICHEVER IS LESS. 7 . PER CONTRA LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. 8 . UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I FIND THAT IT IS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE IN 3 ITA NO. 19/PAT/2016. STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND AS PER THE ASSESSEES RECONCILIATION THE STOC K SHORTAGE WAS ONLY RS.25,079/ - . I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SUMMARILY REJECTED THE RECONCILIATION BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPERLY EXAMINING THE SAME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES I REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SUBMISSIONS AND RECONCILIATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF SEPT. , 2016. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED: 6 TH SEPT. , 2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. ASHOK KUMAR CHANDAK, PROP. M/S BANGLORE SAREE HOUSE, PATNA MARKET, PATNA. 2. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6, PATNA. 3. C.I.T. - , PATNA. 4. CIT(APPEALS), - 2 , PATNA. 5. D.R., ITAT, PATNA. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA. WAKODE.