KARTECH ENVIROSYSTEMS LIMITED, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4414/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8571 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4414/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 KARTECH ENVIROSYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 34, IRANI HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, 7 TH LANE, KHETWADI, GIRGAON, MUMBAI - 400004 PAN: AAACK4307P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(2)(2) AAYAKR BHAWAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI N. HEMALATHA DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.11.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA , JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) 21, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELE VANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:- THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN WATER TREATME NT PLANTS AND SWIMMING POOL CONTRACTS. IT FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2012-13 ON 30.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.11,03,600/- . THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) HAS COMPLETED T HE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.02.2015 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.43,27,540/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISION AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS.11,85,385/- U/S.115JB BY MAKING THE ADDITIONS DISALLOWANCES STATED AT PARA-2 ABOVE. TH E FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN GROSS RECE IPT OF RS.29,43,499/-. THE AO HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL RE CEIPTS OF RS.1,22,59,202/- ITA NO.4414/M/17 A.Y.2012-13 2 IN ITS BOOKS WHEREAS AS PER 26AS INFORMATION THE TO TAL CONTRACT RECEIPT IS RS.1,52,02,701/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.29,43,499/- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE P ARTIES HAVE SHOWN PAYMENT TO ASSESSEE, SINCE THEY DEDUCTED THE TDS WITHIN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR WHEREAS THE BILLS WERE RAISED IN THE SUBSEQUENT FIN ANCIAL YEAR. ACCORDINGLY THE RECEIPTS WERE SHOWN IN THE NEXT YEAR BY THE ASSESSE E BUT AS PER 26AS THE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING T HAT AS THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IT SH OULD HAVE SHOWN THE SAME AS RECEIPT ON DUE OR RECEIPT BASIS WHICHEVER IS EAR LIER. ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.29,43,499/- TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE MATTER CARRIED TO CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.2.1 AFTER RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT IN APRIL, 2012 TH E SAME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE F.Y.2012-13 RELEVANT TO A.Y.2013-14. THE IN COME OFFERED FOR TAXATION FOR THESE TWO YEARS ARE REFLECTED AS UNDER :- A.Y. INCOME FROM OPERATION RECEIPT AS PER FORM 26AS DIFFERENCE 2012-13 12,259,202 15,202,701 2,943,499 2013-14 15,519,822 12,404,073 (3,115,749) 4.2.2 HOWEVER, AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, WHEN THE DIF FERENCE BETWEEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND FORM 26AS NOTICED BY THE AO IS RS.29,4 3,499, THE LD. AR COULD ABLE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF RECONCILIATION ONLY T O THE EXTENT OF RS.21,91,069/-. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO GIV E CREDIT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.21,91,069/-. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO GIV E CREDIT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNTS RECONCILED AND DISALLOW THE BALANCE. HOWEV ER, BEFORE GIVING CREDIT HE IS AT LIBERTY TO VERIFY THE DETAILS TO HIS SATIS FACTION. THE LD. AR IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT ON DEMAND THE SAME DETAILS WHICH WERE PRO VIDED TO ME DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE GROUND IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 4. HAVING HEARD LEARNED DR I AM OF THE OPINION THAT CIT(A) HAS ALREADY RESTORED THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICA TION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THEREFORE I DISMISS THE APPEAL. ITA NO.4414/M/17 A.Y.2012-13 3 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.11.2017. SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 17.11.2017. * MP . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / /(DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI