M/s Teerth Commercials (P) ltd, Jharsuguda V. ACIT, Sambalpur

ITA 314/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 31422114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: S K KEDIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Wrong claim

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , S HRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 314/CT/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 M/S.TEERTH C OMMERCIALS (P) LTD., VINAYAKPURAM, MARWARI PARA, P.O../DIST. JHARSUGUDA 768201 PAN: AACCT 6749 G - - - VERSUS - ACIT, CIRC LE 1(1), SAMBALPUR. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI S.K.KEDIA, AR / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI N.K.NEB, DR / DATE OF HEARING: 28.08.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.09.2012 / ORDER . . . , SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DT.16.02.2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF 18,48,656 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. 3. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD REGARDING THE ISSUE AND IT S LEGAL IMPLICATION. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL AND ANALYZING THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED 2,31,65,925. ON BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM THE DETAILS OF I.T.A.NO. 314/CT/2012 2 TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE REFERENCE TO THE RESPECTIVE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERS AND FROM THE DETAILS FURNISH ED BY THEM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT SOME OF THE VEHICLES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE TRANSPORTED GOODS WERE CYCLE, SCOOTER AND BUSES AND SOME OTHER VEHICLES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH HE HAS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 3.3 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESS EE WAS DOING TRANSPORTATION WORK UNDER SREE METALLICK LTD., LAIDAPADA, BARBIL, DIST. KEONJHAR AND WAS DOING THE TRANSPORTATION WORK OF COAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE VEHICLE LIKE MOTOR CYCLE, SCOOTER, BUSES ETC., COULD NOT HAVE BEEN U SED FOR TRANSPORTING COAL AND THEREFORE, HE HELD THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF 18,48,656 UNDER THIS HEAD AS BOGUS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. HE THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFOR E THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON DETAIL VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL AND CLERICAL ERRORS IN FURNISHING THE NUMBER IN RESPECT OF AT LEAST 81 VEHICLES. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT CORRECT NUMBER OF THE CARRIAGE APPEAR IN THE REGISTER WHEREAS THE WRONG NUMBER IS APPEARING IN THE PAYMENT VOUCHER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT SUCH CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW THAT THE VEHICLES NUMBERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN INADVERTENTLY WHILE FURNISHING THE DETAILS OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE SAME CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS I.T.A.NO. 314/CT/2012 3 GIVEN. WE FIND FORCE IN SUCH CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FIND IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE ALREADY INDICATED ABOVE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) DATE: 14.09.2012 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. / THE APPELLANT : M/S.TEERTH COMMERCIALS (P) LTD., VINAYAKPURAM, MARWARI PARA, P.O../DIST. JHARSUGUDA 768201 2 / THE RESPONDENT: ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), SAMBA LPUR. 3. / THE CIT, 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 5. / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6. GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 314/CT/2012 4 APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 11.09.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12.09.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FO R PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 14.09.2012 . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..