Sidharth Shankar Pramalik, Cuttack V. ITO, Cuttack

ITA 248/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90799 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHOVAN KRISHNA SAHU
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK , . . , BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , J M & SHRI B.P.JAIN , A M ./ ITA NO. 2 48 / CTK /20 1 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 ) SRI SIDHARTHA SHANKAR PRAMALIK, C/O KALINGA JEWELLERY, DOLMUNDAI, CUTTACK - 753001, ODISHA VS. ITO WARD - 2(3),CUTTACK ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A BCPP 2704 M ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI SHOVAN KRISHNA SAHU / DATE OF HEARING : 20 TH MAY , 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22 ND MA Y ,2015 / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV (J.M) : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A ) , CUTTACK DATED 1 1 - 1 - 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 , INTER ALIA , ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) IS NOT CORRECT IN DISALLOW ING THE DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE ACCOUNT. THE BIFURCATION OF PURCHASE IS EXPLAINED AS UNDER. THE DIFFERENCE IN VAT AND INCOME TAX AUDIT REPORT COMES TO RS.17,13,951/ - OUT OF WHICH RS.15,29,569/ - IS THE OLD GOLD RECEIVED FROM FATHER (ASHOK KUMAR PRAMALIK) AS GIFT WHICH IS DIRECTLY CREDITED TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT, BEING NOT PURCHASE IN NATURE THE SAID IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE PURCHASE ACCOUNT OF INCOME TAX AUDIT REPORT, BUT AS THE ENTRY TAX IS PAID ON THE SAID GIFTED AMOUNT HENCE THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN THE PURCHAS E ACCOUNT OF VAT AUDIT REPORT. DURING THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR T HERE WAS PURCHASE RETURN OF RS. 184,382.30/ - . HENCE THE ENTIRE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 2) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL)CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF AO UNDER THE HEAD SALARY TO RS.100,000/ - . THE S TATEMENT GIVEN BY THE EMPLOYEES DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS CORRECT. THE NEW SHOP WAS OPERATIONAL JUST BEFORE THE SURVEY AND THEREAFTER MORE SKILLED STAFFS WERE KEPT TO ENHANCE THE SALE. ADHOC DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE HEAD THE SALARY MADE BY THE AO ON ITA NO. 248 /1 3 2 TH E BASIS OF COMPARISON WITH OTHER SHOP WAS NOT BASED ON MATERIAL EVIDENCES. HENCE THE ENTIRE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 3) THAT IT IS VERY REGRETTED TO STATE THAT DESPITE NO DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN THE SHOP PREMISES DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, STILL TH E DEPARTMENT PRESSURIZED TO PAY ADVANCE TAX, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE AGREED AND PAY RS.700,000/ - . AGAIN THE DEPARTMENT PRESSURIZED TO GIVE A DECLARATION NOT TO CLAIM THE SAID TAX AS REFUND, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE AGREED AND MAINTAIN HIS COMMITMENT. THE THEN A SSESSING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER COMMITTED JOINTLY BEFORE THE ASSESSEE AND THE A/R THAT ' YOU PAY THE ADVANCE TAX DONT CLAIM IT AS REFUND, YOUR CASE WILL BE HANDLED LIBERALLY AND THE SCRUTINY WILL JUST BE A FORMALITY IN YOUR C ASE AND NO HARRASHMENT AND FURTHER TAX WILL BE IMPOSED FOR THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR ' , BUT ALL IN VEIN. INSTEAD OF LIBERAL THE SCRUTINY WAS INTENSIVE AND HIGH DEMAND WAS RAISED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPELLANT BEING AGGRIEVED BY THESE ADDITION HAD FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL)BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS THE COMMITMENT BUT THE DEPARTMENT FAILS TO. HENCE IT IS REQUESTED TO WAIVE THE ENTIRE DEMAND RAISED AT LEAST TO MAINTAIN THE IMAGE AND WORDS OF THE THEN OFFICERS. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 20 - 5 - 2015 , HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS THE AD CARD I S PLACED ON RECORD . SINCE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPEAR DESPITE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX - PARTE . 3. THE REVENUE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPLICATIO N, WE REJECT THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM AND WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY ITA NO. 248 /1 3 3 ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM AND SINCE NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THEREIN, WE, THEREF ORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22/05 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) ( B. P. JAIN ) ( ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 22/05 /2015 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT , CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//