Satya Charan Pandit, Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-45(2), Kolkata

ITA 284/KOL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5797 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTA KHANRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMNATH BERA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.284/KOL/2020 SATYA CHARAN PANDIT, AY 2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C(SMC) BENCH , KOLKATA ( . . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 284/KOL/ 2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SATYA CHARAN PANDIT (PAN: ABGPS7938E) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-45(2), KOLKATA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF VIRTUAL HEARING 03.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05.02.2021 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SOMNATH BERA, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT, SR. D R ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-13, KOLKATA DATED 19.03.2019 FOR AY 2014-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. FOR THAT THE CIT-A WRONGLY ADDED BACK RS.3,94,0 38/- WITHOUT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE DIFFERENCE HAS ARISEN DUE TO CHEQUE RETURN ED DATED ON 18.06.2013, 09.07.2013, 13.07.2013 AND 22.07.2013 RESPECTIVELY. 2. FOR THAT THE CIT-A FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERA TION THAT THE VARIANCE OF RS.3,94,038/- BETWEEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ACTUAL CONFIRMATI ON WAS DUE TO RETURN OF FOUR CHEQUE DATED ON 18.06.2013, 09.07.2013, 13.07.2013 AND 22.07.201 3. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 255 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL. FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPL ICATION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE SAME IT IS NOT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HANDED OVER THE APPEAL PAPERS TO AN ADVOCATE NAMED SHRI BROJAPRASAD SEN ROY CHOWDHURY WHO DID NOT FILE THE APPEAL ON TIME BECAUSE HE WAS UNDERGOING TREATM ENT FOR CANCER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ADVOCATE HAD FILED THE A PPEAL. BUT ONLY IN JANUARY, 2020 THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE SAID ADVOCATE HAS NO T FILED THE APPEAL. SO HE COLLECTED THE SAME AND FILED IT THROUGH ANOTHER LAWYER SHRI SOMNA TH BERA, THEREFORE, THE DELAY CAUSED FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS CONDONATION. THE LD. DR S HRI JAYANTA KHANRA OPPOSING THE 2 ITA NO.284/KOL/2020 SATYA CHARAN PANDIT, AY 2014-15 CONDONATION OF DELAY SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED OR DER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 19.03.2019 AND THE DELAY OF 255 DAYS SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, IT IS NOTED FROM THE CONTENTS OF THE A FFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HANDOVER THE PAPERS NECESSARY FOR FILI NG OF APPEAL TO ADVOCATE SHRI BROJAPRASAD SEN ROY CHOWDHURY. ACCORDING TO THE AS SESSEE, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SUCH ADVOCATE WOULD BE FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN LIMITAT ION, HOWEVER, DUE TO COVID-19 LOCKDOWN ETC. WHICH SET IN FROM DECEMBER, 2019 AND THE YEAR 2020 ONWARDS THE ASSESSEE COULD ONLY CONTACT SHRI BROJAPRASAD SEN ROY CHOWDHURY IN JANUA RY 2020 WHO INTIMATED HIM THAT HE WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT OF CANCER AND DID NOT FILE THE APPEAL ON TIME AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE TOOK BACK THE PAPERS AND HANDED OVER THE S AME TO ADVOCATE SHRI SOMNATH BERA WHO IMMEDIATELY FILED THE APPEAL. TAKING INTO CONS IDERATION THESE FACTS AND ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, I CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 4. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,94,038/-. THE FACTS NOTED BY THE AO ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AO PERUSED THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ON VERIFICATION THROUGH A NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) HE NOTED CER TAIN ANOMALIES/DISCREPANCIES IN THE CASE OF FOUR (4) SELLERS WHICH HE HAS BROUGHT OUT IN THE CH ART AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I AM CONCERNED ONLY ABOUT THE PARTY M/S. LADURAM & SON S WHEREIN AO NOTICED THAT AS PER BOOKS OF ASSESSEE IT IS SHOWN AS RS.30,28,734.64 WH EREAS AS PER CONFIRMATION IT REVEALED THAT IT IS RS.34,21,275.00. THUS, ACCORDING TO AO, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,92,540/-. THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT AS CONCEA LED INCOME/INVESTMENT MADE FOR PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THIS PARTY THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS BECAUSE THE FOUR (4) CHEQUES AS STATED BELOW GO T RETURNED DUE TO TECHNICAL SNAG OF THE BANK AND THE AMOUNT WAS AGAIN SHOWN (DOUBLE), THERE FORE, THIS ANOMALY AROSE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BROUGHT TO HIS NOT ICE THAT THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.1,37,000/- HAS ALSO NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE A O WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTES THE FOLLOWING FACTS BROUGHT TO HIS NOT ICE BY ASSESSEE: 3 ITA NO.284/KOL/2020 SATYA CHARAN PANDIT, AY 2014-15 6. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) DENIED THE CLAIM OF A SSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: THE ABOVE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT PRODUCING C OPIES OF RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT. ONLY LEDGER COPIES OF LADURAM & SONS WERE FILED IN THE C OURSE OF APPEAL. THE A/R FILED ONLY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT NO SUBMISSION WERE FILED. EV EN WHEN ASKED TO PRODUCE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT THE LD. A/R FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SAME. IT IS THEREFORE DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE A/RS PLEA THAT DIFFERENCE REPRESENTS BOUNCED/RETURNED CH EQUES. THE GROUND IS THEREFORE NOT ALLOWED. 7. BEFORE ME THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE P APER BOOK WHEREIN THE LEDGER OF SHRI SATYA CHARAN PANDIT (ASSESSEE) ON ACCOUNT OF M /S. LADURAM & SONS PLACED AT PAGES A1 TO A12 OF PAPER BOOK. THEREAFTER, HE DREW OUR ATTE NTION TO THE LEDGER OF M/S. LADURAM & SONS IN ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAGES B1 TO B6 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCE PLACED AT ANNEXURE C AND AL SO THE BANK STATEMENT OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES D1 D19. A CCORDING TO LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED THE PURCHASES WITH M/S. LADURAM & SONS W HICH IS AS BELOW: 4 ITA NO.284/KOL/2020 SATYA CHARAN PANDIT, AY 2014-15 8. FURTHER, THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE A3 WHICH WOULD REVEAL THAT CHEQUE NO. 433859 WAS DEPOSITED ON 15.06.2013 AND THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS CREDITED OF SUM OF RS.1,18,347/-. HOWEVER, THE BANK RETURNE D THE CHEQUE ON 18.06.2013 AND THEREAFTER, REALIZING THE MISTAKE (TECHNICAL SNAG) THE VERY SAME CHEQUE (NO.433859) WAS AGAIN DEPOSITED AND THE AMOUNT WAS AGAIN CREDITED O F THE SAME AMOUNT I.E. RS.1,18,347/-. THUS, THERE WERE DOUBLE ENTRY/CREDIT OF THE SAME CH EQUE. LIKEWISE IT HAPPENED IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER THREE CHEQUES WHEREIN DOUBLE ENTRY OF THE CREDIT OF THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAPPENED, DUE TO TECHNICAL SNAG OF SOFTWARE OF BANK . BRINGING THIS FACT TO MY NOTICE THE LD. AR SUBMITTED WHEN RECONCILED, THE ACTUAL DIFFER ENCE IS ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.224/- WHICH IS VERY SMALL IN NATURE AND SHOULD BE IGNORED . IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FOUR RETURNED CHEQUES AND THE OPENI NG BALANCE AS STATED ABOVE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTES THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NO T PRODUCE THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT, HE COULD NOT VERIFY THE SAME, THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE ME THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT O F INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK WHICH IS PLACED AT ANNEXURE D1 D19 AND OTHER DOCUMENTS (SUPRA). SIN CE THE AO/LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT VERIFY THE FACTS STATED BY HIM (SUPRA), IN THE INTE REST OF BOTH THE PARTIES, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION ONLY ; AND IF IT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT THEN NO ADD ITION IS WARRANTED AND OTHERWISE, THE AO TO TAKE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. THE ASSESSEE I S AT LIBERTY TO FILE ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AS DISCUSSE D (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2021. SD/- (ABY. T. VARKEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2021 JD(SR.P.S.) 5 ITA NO.284/KOL/2020 SATYA CHARAN PANDIT, AY 2014-15 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SHRI SATYA CHANRAN PANDIT, P-185, ST RAND BANK ROAD, KOLKATA-700 007. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA. 3. 4. 5. CIT(A)-13, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAL) CIT , KOLKATA DR, ITAT, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR