The ACIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch V. Shri Ashwin H. Goyal, Ankleshwar

ITA 2208/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5867 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 2208/AHD/2014 & C.O. NO. 265/AHD/14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH SHRI ASWIN H GOYAL, PROP. OF M/S. BALAJI TRANSPORT CO, G/63 RAVI KIRAN COMPLEX,VALIA ROAD, GIDC, ANKLESHWAR-393002 V/S V/S SHRI ASWIN H GOYAL, PROP. OF M/S. BALAJI TRANSPORT CO, G/63 RAVI KIRAN COMPLEX,VALIA ROAD, GIDC, ANKLESHWAR-393002 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ACRPG1066B APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR. D.R . RESPONDENT BY : NONE ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 17 -05-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 -05-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2 208/AHD/2014 & C.O. NO. 265/AHD/2014 . A.Y. 200 7-08 2 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-V, B ARODA DATED 07.05.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVEN UE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND FURTHER ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. 3. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE A.O. N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRACT INCOME FROM TRANSPORTATION AMOUNTING T O RS. 2,59,10,656/-. THE A.O. FURTHER FOUND THAT THE CREDIT OF TDS WAS A LLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,47,117/-. CONSIDERING THE TDS CERTIFICATE, TH E A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HIRE CHARGES INCOME OF RS. 2,41, 86,122/-. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED HIR E CHARGES OF RS. 17,24,534/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: - 'I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-2008 WE HAVE SHOWN TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,57,18,925/- WHICH INCLU DES HIRE INCOME RS. 2,41,86,122/-, TRANSPORT INCOME OF RS. 9,02,203/- A ND TRANSPORT INCOME INCOMING INCOME OF RS. 6,30,600/-. I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOUR GOODNESS THAT OUR CUSTOMER HAS DEDUCTED AS FOLLOWS : HIRE INCOME . RS. 2,41, 86,122.00 ADD : TRANSPORT INCOME RS. 9,02, 203.00 ITA NO. 2 208/AHD/2014 & C.O. NO. 265/AHD/2014 . A.Y. 200 7-08 3 ADD : TRANSPORT INCOME BOOKED IN PREVIOUS YEAR ON WHICH TDS DEDUCTED IN CURRENT YEAR. RS. 8,77,732.00 BELL CERAMIC LIMITED RS. 7, 64, 932.00 TCP LIMITED RS. 1,12, 800.00 SUB TOTAL RS. 2,59,66, 057. 00 LESS : INCOME SHOWN IN CURRENT YEAR BUT TDS DEDU CTED IN NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. TCP LIMITED RS. 39,200.00 RS. 39,200.00 INCOME SHOWN IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT RS. 2,59,26,857.00 INCOME AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE RS. 2,59,11,196.00 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY IT, THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,12,800/- BUT HAS NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE BALANCE OF RS. 16,11,734/-. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY ADDED RS. 16,11,734/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND ONCE AGAIN SUBMITTED THE DETAILED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. IN RESPECT O F THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 16,11,734/-, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED AS UNDER:- DIFFERENCE AS PER AO RS. 16,11,734/- TRANSPORT INCOME NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. RS. 9,0 2,203/- DIFFERENCE RS. 7,09,531/- LESS INCOME OFFERED IN EARLIER YEAR BUT ITA NO. 2 208/AHD/2014 & C.O. NO. 265/AHD/2014 . A.Y. 200 7-08 4 TDS DEDUCTED BY PARTY IN THIS YEAR. RS. 7,64,392 /- DIFFERENCE RS. 55,000/- 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED PARTY-WISE RECONCILIATI ON OF TDS AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) CAME TO THE CONC LUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY RECONCILED THE DIFFERENCE. HOWEVER , THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE RECONCILIATION AND AFTER VER IFICATION TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,11,734/-, IF THE RECONCILIATION IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED A DETAILED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT IN EXTENSION OF THE RECONC ILIATION STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE A.O. SINCE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO VERIFY THIS ELABORATE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BEFO RE GIVING THE APPEAL EFFECT, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE REVENUE CAN S AY THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BEYOND THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE ACT. 8. A CONSPECTUS READING OF THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT WHILE GIVING THE APPEAL EFFECT, THE A.O. HAS AGREED TO GIVE APPEAL EFFECT BY ACCEPTING THE RECONCILIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THERE IS NO ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. ITA NO. 2 208/AHD/2014 & C.O. NO. 265/AHD/2014 . A.Y. 200 7-08 5 9. APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CR OSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19 - 05- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 19 /05/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD