ACIT, Pune V. M/s ELEMAC INDUSTRIES, Pune

ITA 2248/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 224824514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P J AP TE
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2248/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 8, PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. M/S ELEMAC INDUSTRIES, PLOT NO.119/122, H-BLOCK, MIDC, PIMPRI, PUNE 411 044. PAN : AAAFE7347N . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P. J. APTE DATE OF HEARING : 12-03-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-03-2015 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGA INST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, PUNE DA TED 10.08.2012 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 29.11.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE CAPTIONED PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN LISTED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.98/PN/2014 DATED 23.01.2015 WHEREBY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L PASSED ON 12.03.2015 WAS RE-CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATING THE F OLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT ADJUDICATED EARLIER :- 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF RS.4,35,187/- WHEN IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION ? ITA NO.2248/PN/2012 3. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE RIVAL COUNSELS HAVE BEEN HEARD. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS IN RELATION TO THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL ARE THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH COPY OF ITS DATA AND REQUIRED THE ASS ESSEE TO FURNISH RE- CONCILIATION ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES. TH E TABULATION CONTAINED IN PARA 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR REVEALS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RECEIPTS SHOWN AS PER THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND THE RECEIPT SHOW N AS PER THE ITS DATA FROM 7 DIFFERENT PARTIES, SUCH DIFFERENCE AMOUNTED TO RS.4,76,279/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED IN PARA 14 OF THE ORDER THAT NO EXPLANATION EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF ONE CONCERN WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE. FURTHER, IN CASE OF ONE CONCERN, M/S TVS MOTORS, IT IS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF LETTER ADDRESSED TO TH E SAID CONCERN, ASKING ABOUT SUCH RECONCILIATION. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNREASONA BLE AND ACCORDINGLY HE BROUGHT TO TAX THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.4,76,279/- AS U NACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT IS NOTED IN PARA 15 OF THE ORDER THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED RE-CONCILIATION CHART. IT IS AL SO NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT AS PER THE SAID RE-CONCILIATION ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 1,092/- REMAINED TO BE RECONCILED. THEREAFTER, HE HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CHART AND SUBSTITUTE THE AMOUNT OF RS.41,092/- IN P LACE OF RS.4,76,279/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE GROUND, SUBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A PPEARING FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THE CIT(A) HAS DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CHART BUT HAS OTHERWISE CRYST ALLIZED THE ADDITION OF RS.41,092/- IN PLACE OF RS.4,76,279/- MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, T HE VERIFICATION EXERCISE OF ITA NO.2248/PN/2012 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE MEANINGLESS IN THE P RESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE CIT(A) AT THE SAME TIME HAS CRYSTALLIZED THE RESULTANT ADDITION ALSO. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT -ASSESSEE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE PLEA OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE REMAND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE WITHOUT ANY FRET TERS AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO VERIFY THE EN TIRE ASPECT AND THEREAFTER DECIDE AS PER LAW. APART THEREFROM, THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT IN-EFFECT, THERE IS NO DIFF ERENCE IN THE RECEIPTS AS PER THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND THOSE REFLECTED AS PER THE IT S DATA. 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO MODIFY THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) CONTAINED IN PAR A 15 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE R ECONCILIATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE MATTER AFRES H AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE ASSE SSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT-FORTH ITS RE-CONCILIATION AND AN Y OTHER MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS STAND THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE R ECEIPT SHOWN AS PER THE ACCOUNT BOOKS VIS--VIS THE RECEIPT SHOWN AS PER TH E ITS DATA. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT, REVENUE SUCCEEDS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE CAPTIONED PROCEEDINGS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 30 TH MARCH, 2015. SUJEET ITA NO.2248/PN/2012 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-V, PUNE; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE