Partha Sarathi Ghosh , Howrah V. ITO, Ward - 33(3) , Kolkata

ITA 2608/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7928 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PINKI SHAW ACA
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2608/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-2014 PARTHA SARATHI GHOSH 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) I.T.A. NO. 2608/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-2014 PARTHA SARATHI GHOSH,.............................. ...............................APPELLANT 61/3/1, BUXARAH, BUXARAH V ILLAGE ROAD, DHAKA PLACE, HOWRAH-711 306 [PAN: ADZPG 7458 A] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...................................RESPONDENT WARD-33(3), KOLKATA, 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 016 APPEARANCES BY: MS. PINKI SHAW, ACA, FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT, SR. D.R. , FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 22, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 22, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ):- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, KOLKATA DAT ED 28.09.2018 AND THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,17,303/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED MISMATCH IN RECEIPTS DISCLOSED I N FORM 26AS. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANPOWER SUPPLY AND SALE OF FLOWERS . THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED B Y HIM ON 27.09.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,29,670/-. AS NOTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE GR OSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS REFLECTED IN THE RELEVA NT FORM NO. 26AS WERE RS.1,00,70,436/- WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN HIS G ROSS RECEIPTS AT ITA NO. 2608/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-2014 PARTHA SARATHI GHOSH 2 RS.90,77,577/- IN THE ACCOUNTS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE W AS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THIS DIFFERENCE, A REC ONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE . THE DIFFERENCE AS EXPLAINED IN THE SAID RECONCILIATION WAS ACCEPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,75,556/- AND THE BALANCE DIFF ERENCE OF RS.1,17,303/- WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E AS UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS. 3. THE ADDITION OF RS.1,17,303/- MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS WA S CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APP EALS). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ), IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1, 17,303/- REPRESENTING TWO AMOUNTS OF RS.1,10,056/- AND RS.7,247/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY AND REPAIR BILLS AND THE SAME WAS DULY SHOWN SEPARA TELY IN THE ACCOUNTS UNDER SALES RECEIPTS OF RS.1,84,285/-. THIS CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT NO DETAILS OF SUPPLY AND REPAIR BILLS SHOWN UNDER SALE S RECEIPTS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE AMOUNTS OF RS. 1,10,056/- A ND RS.7,247/- WERE DULY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SALES RECEIPTS IN A CONSOLIDATED FIGURE OF RS.1,84,285/-. SHE HAS ALSO FILED THE DETAILS OF SALES RECEIPTS TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,84,285/- WAS DULY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE SEPARATELY UNDER SALES RECEIPTS. THE LD. D.R., ON T HE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN QUESTION WAS TREATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS BY THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW FOR WANT OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ITA NO. 2608/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-2014 PARTHA SARATHI GHOSH 3 CLAIM THAT IS NOW BEING MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF SALES RECEIPTS THU S REQUIRES VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIV EN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. I FIND MERIT IN THIS CO NTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. AND SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION, I SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN QUESTION FROM THE RELEVANT RECORD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 22, 201 9. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 22 ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI PARTHA SARATHI GHOSH, 61/3/1, BUXARAH, BUXARAH V ILLAGE ROAD, DHAKA PLACE, HOWRAH-711 306 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-33(3), KOLKATA, 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 016 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, KOLKATA , (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.