Ashok Kumar Bajoria, Cuttack V. ITO, Cuttack

ITA 301/CTK/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4394 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K BANDYOPADHYAY
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SHETH

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.285 /CTK/2015 ITA NO.301/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 285 /CTK/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 ITO, WARD 2(3), CUTTACK. VS. SRI ASHOK KUMAR BAJORIA, TOWN HALL ROAD, CUTTACK PAN/GIR NO . AAVPB 6401 F (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ITA NO.301 /CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 SRI ASHOK KUMAR BAJORIA, TOWN HALL ROAD, CUTTACK VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), CUTTACK. PAN/GIR NO.AAVPB 6401 F (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.K.SHETH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. BANDYOPADHYAY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 / 01 / 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 4 / 0 1/ 201 8 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM TH E CROSS APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - CUTTACK DATED 31.3.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 01. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING DISCREPANCY IN GROSS RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.28,43,884 ON THE GROUND 3 ITA NO.285 /CTK/2015 ITA NO.301/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 CORPORATION LTD., WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT (A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPT UNDER THE HEAD HDD CHARGES IS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS NET FIGURE EXCLUDING SERVICE TAX. THE FIGURE RE F LECTED IN THE 26AS STATEMENT CONSIST OF GROSS RECEIPTS EXCLUDING SERVICE TAX, INC OME OF PAST YEARS AND SOME PART OF INCOME ALREADY REFLECTED IN THE P & L A/C. UNDER OTHER HEAD. THE A SSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT ALONG WITH EVIDENCE AS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER . AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DID NOT FIND ANY REASON TO CONSIDER THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT AS INCOME BECAUSE THE SAME IS NOT PART OF THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE YEAR. THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US, L D D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. LD D.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). FURTHER, LD D.R. ALSO COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONGWITH EVIDENCE HENCE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS H EREBY CONFIRMED AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5 ITA NO.285 /CTK/2015 ITA NO.301/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. HENCE, HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. BEFORE US, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE AND IDENTITY IS PROVED AND SUPPORTED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER, I.E. ASSESSEES WIFE WITH PAPER BOOK CONTAINING CONFIRMATION LETTER, INCO ME TAX RETURNS AND ALSO COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD D.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT (BANK OF INDIA) AT PAGE 14 OF PAPER BOOK, WHICH REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE ON 25.11.200 9. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBSTANTIATED THAT PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CHEQUE FOR RS.10 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEES WIFE BANK ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED WITH DEPOSIT OF MATURITY AMOUNT AND THE SA ID AMOUNT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. LD D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS ASSETS AND A DVANCE OF RS.10 LAKHS MADE DURING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR IS REFLECTED UNDER THE INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD A.R. SUPPORTED WITH COPY OF BALANCE SHEET REFERRED TA PAGE 13 OF PAPER BOOK. FURTHER TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX, HE HAS PRODUCED INCOME TAX RETURNS , COMPUTATION OF INCOME REFERRED AT PAGES 11 7 ITA NO.285 /CTK/2015 ITA NO.301/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 AS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES WITH THE PLEA THAT ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A RE KEPT IN KOLKATA, WHERE THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED ON. IN ABSENCE OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF ITAT CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF K.J. PRAHAKAR VS ACIT IN ITA NO.703(MAD) OF 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 DATED 8.7.2011 MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF TOTAL EXPENSES WHICH COMES TO RS.7,58,085/ - . 18. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 19. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF LOWE R AUTHORITIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE RELEVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THEM TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM AND EVEN B EFORE US, LD A.R. COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO TAKE ANY CONTRARY VIEW. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS DISPUTED ISSUE AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 0 4 / 01 /201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( N.S SAINI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 0 4 / 01 /201 8 B.K.PARIDA, SPS