S.P.SUBRAMANIAM, ERODE V. ACIT CIRCLE 2, ERODE

ITA 3095/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8418 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3095/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 SHRI S.P. SUBRAMANIAM, 42/2, METTUPALAYAM ROAD, SATHYAMANGALAM, ERODE 638 402. [ PAN: AHXPS5018E] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, ERODE. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE, ERODE. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. JOHNSON, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.08.2021 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3, COIMBATORE, DATED 15.10.2018 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING PETROL BUNK ADMITTED TOTAL INCOME OF .10,72,410/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF .10,71,602/- BETWEEN THE SALES LEDGER AND SALES BY METER. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR MISMATCH, THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO. 3095/CHNY/2018 2 HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASE THE PETROL/DIESEL WERE GIVEN DISCOUNT AND THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE AROSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION WAS MADE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASE DIESEL/PETROL OF HIGH QUANTITY HAS GIVEN SOME DISCOUNT AS MARKETING STRATEGY AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF .10,71,602/- BETWEEN THE SALES LEDGER AND METER READING. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AMOUNT OF .10,71,602/- IS A SUPPRESSED SALES RECEIPT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE CUSTOMERS, CERTAIN DISCOUNT HAS TO BE GIVEN AS A MARKETING STRATEGY. BY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO BY CONSIDERING THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT I.T.A. NO. 3095/CHNY/2018 3 THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO .5,00,000/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED PARTLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 19 TH AUGUST, 2021 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 19.08.2021 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.