Shri Ratan Kumar Mitra, Nadia V. I.T.O, Ward - 3, Nadia, Nadia

ITA 329/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9408 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H N SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: D CHAKRABORTY LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 6

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : KOLKATA () BEFORE . . , , SHRI D.K.TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. . !'# /AND ..$, % , SHRI B.K.HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #& / I.T.A.NO. 329/KOL/2010 '() '*+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SRI RATAN KUMAR MITRA PAN:AEMPM 0602E - '( - - VERSUS -. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, NADIA (./ / APPELLANT ) (0.// RESPONDENT) ./ 1 2 / FOR THE APPELLANT: / SHRI D.CHAKRABORTY, LD.AR. 0./ 1 2 / FOR THE RESPONDENT : / SHRI H.N. SINGH, LD.DR 3 / ORDER ..$, % , SHRI B.K.HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), XXXVI, KOLKATA DATED 30.10.2 009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL:- 01. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XXXVI, KOLKA TA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ID. CIT (A)) WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED TO CONFIRM THE ARBITRARY ADDITION OF RS. 6,35,894/ ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 6 8 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS MADE BY THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE I NSTANT CASE AND FOR THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ID. CIT (A) IS ERRON EOUS, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND BED IN LAW IN THE INSTANT CASS. 02. THAT FOR ANY OTHER GROUND/ GROUNDS OF APPEAL WH ICH THE APPELLANT MAY RAISE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE A PPEAL IN THE INSTANT CASE. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. BPCL CO. THE ASSE SSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6,35,894/- CONSISTING OF RS.5,47,306/-, RS.87,888/- AND RS.700/- TREATING TH E SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE LD.CIT(A) CO NFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 329/KOL/2010 2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE. THE CLAIM THAT DEMAND DRAFT ( 8 NOS.) FOR RS.5,39,597/- WERE NOT ENTERED BY THE ACCOUNTANT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS NOT SUBSTANT IATED EITHER BY PRODUCING SUPPLIERS CONFIRMATION OR THE APPELLANT S BANK STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR. FURTHER, AS PER THE APPELLANT ALL THE PAYMENTS TO B PCL WERE MADE BY DRAFTS. THEREFORE, WHY CERTAIN PAYMENTS BY DRAFT S WERE OMITTED WAS NOT MADE CLEAR. SIMILARLY THE EXPLANATION THAT THERE IS A POSTING MISTAKE FOR RS.158200/- CAUSING THE DISCREP ANCY OF RS.8,78,888/- IS ALSO NOT MADE CLEAR. FURTHER THE B ALANCE OF RS.700/- REMAINS UNRECONCILED. CONSIDERING ALL, TH E APPELLANT DID NOT RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE AO EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, T HE ADDITION OF RS.6,35,894/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOUN D TO BE IN ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.6,35,894/- I S CONFIRMED. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 6. BEFORE US THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS PER ANNEXURE-A, B OF LETTER DATED 12/01/2011. AS S UCH EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AT HAND, WE ADMIT THE SAME. 6.1 REFERRING TO THE ABOVE AND BANK STATEMENT OF TH E ASSESSEE WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, WHICH FORMS ANNEXURE-C OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 12/01/201 1, THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDE D BY HIM THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 6.2 AS THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE, WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AT HAND AND AS FURTHER VERIFICATION WITH REFE RENCE TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELATED EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO ARE REQUIRED TO ARR IVE AT A CONCLUSION, THE BENCH REQUIRED THE LD.DR TO STATE AS TO WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, DISPUTED ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-CONSIDERATION. THE LD. DR HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE ABOVE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECOR D. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPEL LANT BEFORE US, THE DISPUTED ISSUE REQUIRES RE- CONSIDERATION BY THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT A FRESH ORDER BE PASSED AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING THE APPELLA NT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA NO. 329/KOL/2010 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. $ 3 %4 5 4( $6 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19-0 1-2011 SD/- SD/- (. . ), ( ..$ ), % , (D.K.TYAGI), JUDICIAL MEMBER. ) (B.K.H ALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (%) DATE :19-01-2011 *PP / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY : 3 1 0''7 87*9- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. (./ / APPELLANT ) : SRI RATAN KUMAR MITRA PROP: M/S. MITRA DISTRIBUT OR, BANGRAM ROAD, P.O CHAKDHA, DIST: NADIA (WB). 2. ( 0.// RESPONDENT) : INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ANANTA HA RI MITRA ROAD, KRISHNAGAR, DIST:NADIA. 3. '3( ( )/ THE CIT(A) 4. '3( ( )/ THE CIT 5. ':' 0'( / DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6. GUARD FILE 7 0'/ TRUE COPY, 3(4/ BY ORDER, ; #< /DEPUTY REGISTRAR