Sri Vaibhav Raonak, Bhubaneswar V. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

ITA 409/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7193 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR PATRAAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.409/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 2011 SRI VAIBHAV RAONAK, PLOT NO.49, ASHOK NAGAR, JANAPATH, BHUBANESWAR. VS. ITO, WARD 1(2), BHUBANESWAR. PAN/GIR NO. AIXPR 3837 M (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR PATRA,AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 08 /03 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 /03 / 2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1, BHUBA N E SWAR DATED 4.8.2014 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 . 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.38,21,514/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CASH ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE 2 ITA NO.409/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM 6 PARTIES AS UNDER: 1) DEBI PRASAD MOHAPATRY : RS.5,10,000/ - 2) SMRUTI BEHERA, : RS.5,12,700/ - 3) CHANMAYEE RAJGURU, : RS.6,20,000/ - 4) FAKIR CHARAN SAHOO ; RS.5,25,000/ - 5) DEBENDU PATTNAIK : RS.5,40,9 37/ - 6) ABONI KUMAR KANUNGO : RS.5,75,000 TOTAL: RS.32,83,736/ - 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE LETTERS ISSUED TO ABOVE PERSONS WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UNSERVED AND THAT THE INSPECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT ALSO REPORTED THAT NO SUCH PERSONS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESSES. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO REACH THE ABOVE PERSONS AND BRING THEM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONFIRMATION OF T HE ADVANCES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF ADVANCE OF RSW.5,37,877/ - IN CASH FROM SPARSH HOSPITAL & CRITICAL CARE (P) LTD., WHO HAS DENIED OF HAVING GIVEN SUCH ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.38,21,514/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS PER LEDGER ACCOUNT, THE OPENING BALANCE AND ADVANCE RECEIVED WERE AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO.409/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 6. HE OBSERVED THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN 30,25,000/ - AS ADVANCE FROM INDIVIDUALS AND RS.5,37,877/ - FROM SPARSH HOSPITAL & CRITICAL CARE (P) LTD., AGGREGATING TO RS.35,62,877/ - IN CASH WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.35, 62,877/ - . 7. BEFORE ME, LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTIES FROM WHOM ADVANCE IN CASH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.32,83,637/ - DURING THE YEAR WERE SUPPLIED GOODS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQU ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SALE INVOICES WERE RAISED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THUS, IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. IT WAS THEREFORE HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING FROM THE RECORDS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD GOODS TO THOSE PARTIES FROM WHOM ADVANCE OF RS.32,83,637/ - WAS RECEIVED DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND 4 ITA NO.409/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE ABOVE SUBMIS SION OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING FROM RECORDS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD GOODS TO T HOSE PARTIES FROM WHOM ADVANCE OF RS.32,83,637/ - WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT SAID AMOUNT WAS OFF ERED TO TAX BY WAY OF SALE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR MADE TO THOSE PARTIES FROM WHOM ADVANCE OF RS.32,83,637/ - WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THEN NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THIS PART OF THE GR OUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. THE OTHER PART OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO CASH ADVANCE OF RS.5,37,877/ - RECEIVED IN CASH FROM SPARSH HOSPITAL & CRITICAL CARE (P) LTD., I FIND THAT LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE NO SUBMISSIONS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OR IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE ME. HENCE, I CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.5,37,877/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS PART OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED 5 ITA NO.409/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 /03 /2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 08 /03 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : SRI VAIBHAV RAONAK, PLOT NO.49, ASHOK NAGAR, JANAPATH, BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD 1(2), BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE CIT(A) - 1, BHUBANESWAR 4. CIT , BHUBANESWAR. 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//