Sri Palash Bhowmick, Hooghly V. ITO, Ward-1(2), Hooghly, Hooghly

ITA 2025/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3202 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTHA PRATIM DUTTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: K OLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] I.T.A NO.2025/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI PALASH BHOWMICK VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD -1(2), HOOGHLY (PAN:AEVPB7020C) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 04.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.02.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SIDDHARTHA PRATIM DUTTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SANJAY MUKHERJEE, JCIT, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NO. 303/CIT(A)-XXXVI/KOL/WD-1(2)/HG/2011-12 DATED 3 0.06.2014. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-1(2), HOOGHLY U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 09.12.2011. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THIS APPEAL B Y ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 14 DAYS AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION STATING THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SERIOUSLY ILL AND DOCTOR ADVISED HIM TO TAKE REST FOR FULL ONE WE EK W.E.F. 22.10.2014 AND THE APPEAL WAS GETTING TIME BARRED ON 23.10.2014. ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL ON 05.11.2014. ACCORDINGLY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME STATED THAT DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AND QUA THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT. I FIND THE CAUSE AS REASONABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, I ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO RELATING TO SUNDRY CREDITOR (PURCHASES) TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE SUNDRY CREDITOR IN REGARD T O PURCHASES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE PARTIES AND ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE SAME BY T REATING THE SAME AS BOGUS SUNDRY CREDITORS AT RS.7,11,151/-, WHICH ARE THE FOLLOWING: SL. NO. NAME OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNT AS PER ASSESSEE AMOUNT AS PER CONFIRMATION DIFFERENCE 1 LAXMI ENTERPRISE 1,62,630/- NOT RECEIVED - 2. POPULAR TUBE WELL & RUBBER INDUSTRIES 1,84,790/ - RETURNED BACK UNSERVED 1,84,790/- 2 ITA NO.2025/KOL/2014 PALASH BHOWMICK, AY 2009-10 2 3. ISHA ENTERPRISE 1,14,300/- NOT YET RECEIVED - 4. NEW MOHESH BRICK FIELD 1,82,800/- NIL 1,82,800/- 5. S. K. RHAMAN 1,46,880/- NOT YET RECEIVED 1,58,361/- 6. MOGRA CEMENT PIPE CO. 1,62,679/- 4,336/- 1,58,361/- 7. SHOW ENTERPRISE 1,85,200/- RETURNED BACK UNSERVED 1,85,200/- 8. GEUS CONSTRUCTION 1,21,340/- NOT YET RECEIVED - TOTAL DIFFERENCE 7, 11,151/- AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO BY RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIE VED, NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 5. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BEFORE ME, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAP ER BOOK CONSISTS OF PAGES 1 TO 40 WHEREIN HE HAS FILED DETAILS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM POPULAR TU BE WELL & RUBBER INDUSTRIES AND OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2009 AT RS.1,84,792 /-. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT AND PURCHASE BILLS IN RESPEC T TO MOGRA CEMENT PIPE COMPANY AMOUNTING TO RS.1,62,697/- BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2009, SHYAM EN TERPRISES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,85,200/- IN RESPECT TO WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PAPER BOOK HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT TO THESE THREE PA RTIES REGARDING PURCHASES AND OUTSTANDING AMOUNT. IN RESPECT TO NEW MOHESH BRICK FIELD AMOUN TING TO RS.1,82,800/- THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE PURCHASE BILLS BUT FILED ONLY LEDGER A CCOUNT WITHOUT CONFIRMATION. BUT ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, LD. SR. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THAT THE PURCHASES ARE INGENUINE. NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BILLS RESPECT TO PUR CHASES MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NEW MOGRA BRICK FIELD BUT THE LD. SR. DR ALSO COULD NOT CONTROVERT THAT THE PURCHASES ARE MADE AND THE SAME ARE GENUINE. ONCE THE PURCHASES ARE ACCEPTED AS GENUIN E, THE SUNDRY CREDITOR CANNOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED. IN TERM OF THE ABOVE NOTICE, I DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2016 JD. SR. P.S 3 ITA NO.2025/KOL/2014 PALASH BHOWMICK, AY 2009-10 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SHRI PALASH BHOWMICK, 141, NEHRU NAGAR COLONY, P.O. MAHESH, HOOGHLY- 712202 2. RESPONDENT ITO, WD-1(2), HOOGHLY. 3. CIT(A) , KOLKATA 4. CIT , KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .