ASL ADVANCED SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., BANGALORE V. D.C.I.T. 3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4310/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2183 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K DHONDIAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKUNJ GADIA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH , MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, J M AND SRI RAMIT KOCHAR , AM ITA NO . 4310/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008 - 09 ) ASL ADVANCED SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PRAGATI7/10 MILER ROAD, BANGALORE 560 052 PAN:AAACA 7949 M VS. THE DY. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY .. SHRI NIKUNJ GADIA, AR RESPONDENT BY .. SHRI A. K. DHONDIAL, DR DATE OF HEARING .. 18 - 10 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT .. 18 - 10 - 2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH , JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING OU T OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 5 , MUMBAI IN APPEAL NO.CIT ( A) - 5 / DCIT - 3/IT - 170/2011 - 12 DATE D 04 - 0 3 - 2012 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE D C IT , CIRCLE - 3 (1) , MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 0 9 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27 - 12 - 2010 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) . 2. THE TWO INTERCONNECTED ISSUES BEING THE DIFFERENCE OF UN - RECONCILED SALE OF RS.97,365/ - AND RS.3800/ - , A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR FROM THE SALES TAX CHALLANS AND RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE AD DITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.97,365/ - BEING SALES TAX FOR SEPTEMBER, 2007 ACCOUNTED FOR TWICE PAID TO KARNATAKA VAT AUTHORITIES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CORRECT FIGURES OF TURNOVER, VAT, SALES TAX AND CST SALES WHICH I S AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 43 10 /MUM/20 1 2 2 (1) VAT SALES CST SALES GRAND TOTAL 8) BASIC AMOUNT (2) TAX (3) TOTAL (4) BASIC AMOUNT (5) TAX (6) TOTAL (7) EARLIER 21,34,213 2,49,777 23,83,990 33,86,486 2,50,040 36,32,726 60,16,716 CO RRECTED 21,34,213 2,49,777 23,83,990 33,86,486 2,50,040 36,36,526 60,20,516 IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF TOTAL CST SALES OF RS.36,32,726/ - WHICH SHOULD BE READ AS RS.36,36,526/ - WHICH IS DUE TO TOTALING ERROR . CONSIDERING THE FIGURE OF CORRECT CST SALES AT RS.36,36,526/ - , THE TOTAL TURNOVER WORKED OUT AT RS.60,20,516/ - AS AGAINST THE CST SALES AND VAT SALES DISCLOSED AT RS.60,16,716/ - . THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RECONCILED THE ENTIRE FIGURES CORRECTL Y AND HENCE, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES A S REGARDS TO ADDITION OF RS.3,800/ - . BUT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED IN ENTIRETY THAT THE CIT (A) HAS MADE AN ERROR FROM THE SALES TAX CHALLANS AND RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FURNISHED B EFORE HIM. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS DIFFERENCE OF RS.97,365/ - AROSE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SALES TAX FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2007 WAS CONSIDERED TWICE BY KVAT AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PLAUSIBLE AND THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DELETE THE ENTIRE A DDITION AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 - 10 - 2016 . SD/ - (RAMIT KOCHAR ) ACCONTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18 - 10 - 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/SR.PS SD/ - ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 43 10 /MUM/20 1 2 3 BY ORD ER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI SR. NO. PARTICULARS DATE INITIALS MEMBER CONCERNED 1 DICTATION GIVEN ON 18 / 1 0/16 LK DEKA JM 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19 /10/16 / 25/10/16 3 DRAFT PROPOSED/PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//