PRUDENTIAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. I.T.O. 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2255/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5768 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER KOUR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.2255/M/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 ) M/S. PRUDENTIAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., BLDG. NO.2B, UNIT NO.10, MITTAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 59. / VS. ITO - 8(2)(4), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AACCO 4435 D ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY R. SINGH / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PARMINDER KOUR , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 13 .1.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 .1.2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 4/4/2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)17, MUMBAI DATED 23.1.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE LD CIT (A) GAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 8,68,084/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS, HO WEVER, ADVANCES CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BASED ON TDS CERTIFICATES . THE CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TDS CREDIT IS CLAIMED, INCOME SHOULD ALSO BE TAXED AS IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT SUCH ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT VIDE CIRCULAR FROM THE CBDT, THE TDS CREDIT AND THE TAXABILITY OF THE RELEVANT INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE TDS CANNOT BE GIVEN CREDIT IN A YEAR AND THE RELATABLE TAXABLE INCOME SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX IN A DIFFERENT YEARS. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VARIOUS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT (A) FOR THE FIRST TIME AND HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE REJECTED WITHOUT ADMITTING THE SAME. IN THIS REG ARD, LD COUNSEL SEEKS DIRECTION TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR ENTERTAINING THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID CIRCULARS OF THE CBDT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. PUS HPA VIJOY VS. ACIT [2005] 4 SOT 589 (COCH.) WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE TDS MADE IN A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR SHOULD BE GIVEN CREDIT IN ASSESSMENT OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITSELF, AS THERE IS NO PROVISION IN ACT TO DIVIDE TDS INT O DIFFERENT PROPORTIONATE PIECES AND TO GIVE CREDIT ON BASIS WHETHER ENTIRE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR ASSESSMENT OR NOT. ON THE FACTS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE TDS CREDIT WAS GIVEN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE RELATAB LE INCOME WAS ADJUSTED IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR THE VALID REASONS. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) SHALL ASSIST FOR OBTAINING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ON THIS ISSUE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OBJECTED THE ADMITTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) SHALL BE ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON THAT THEY ARE GARNERED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS CONSTITUTES A VALI D REASON AND THE RELEVANT PAPERS HELPS THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ADMIT THE SAID PAPERS AND EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER GRANTING A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2014. S D/ - SD/ - (VIJAY PAL RAO) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 17 .1 .2014 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI