Meena Sakariya, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 457/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6043 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PALANICHAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.457/MDS/2017 ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011. SMT. MEENA SAKARIYA, NO.45, (OLD NO.21) HALLS ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI 600 010. [PAN AASPS 7154D] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORP. CIRCLE, CHENNAI 600 006. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) #$ % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE '(#$ % & /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. PALANICHAMY, JCIT. ) % * /DATE OF HEARING : 11-10-2017 +,'! % * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-10-2017 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 15.12.2016 OF THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI, IS AGGRIEVED ON AN ADDITI ON OF RS.3,78,456/- ITA NO. 457/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS CONFIR MED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF FINANCE AND TRADING IN STEEL PIPES HAD FILED HER RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,12,24,800/-. THERE WAS A SURVEY OPERATION U/S. 133A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEE ON 24.03.2010. AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THERE WERE CERTAIN DIFFERENCES IN SALES AND PURCHASES FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SUCH SURVEY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, THE TOTAL SALES SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.30,46,71,196/- AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE HAD I N A RECONCILIATION FILED, GIVEN A FIGURE OF RS.30,50,49,652/-. ACCORDI NG TO HIM, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,78,456/- WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS UNACCOUNTED SALES. AN ADDITION OF C3,78,456/- WAS MADE. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS T HAT FIGURES MENTIONED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RELA TE TO SALES. ITA NO. 457/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: ACCORDING TO HIM, THE SALES FIGURE SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE AT RS. 30,50,49,652/- WAS MORE THAN FIGURE OF RS.30,46,71 ,196/- FOUND ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR ADDITION ON SUPPRESSION OF SALES SINCE FI GURE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RECONCILIATION WAS HIGHER. AS PER T HE ASSESSEE, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,78,456/- RELATED TO PURCHASES. ASSESSEE ALSO GAVE A LIST OF PURCHASE BILLS, RECONCILING SUCH DIFFE RENCE. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SOUGHT A REMAN D REPORT FROM THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE SAID REMAND REPOR T LD. ASSESSING OFFICER STATED HAS UNDER:- 1. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE DIFFERENCE OF SALES ON THE DAY OF SURVEY WAS C30,46,71,196/- AS PER TRADING ACCOUNTING. HOWEVER, A RECONCILIATION PROVIDED SHO WS SALES AT C30,49,652/-. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE MAY BE SUSTAINED. WHEN THIS WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE, CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DEALT WITH ITS SUBMISSIONS AT ALL. 4. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONS IDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE HELD THAT THE DIFFERENCE ADDED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PERTA INED TO SALES WHEREAS ASSESSEE WAS GIVING THE RECONCILIATION FOR ITS PURCHASES. HE THUS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER. ITA NO. 457/MDS/2017 :- 4 -: 5. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMI TTED THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DIFFERENCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF SALES. ACCORDING T O HIM, ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN BILLWISE RECONCILIATION OF PURCHASES AND THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR ANY ADDITION. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD CONSIDERED SALES AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY REFLECTED IN TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT C30,46,71,196/-. ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTE D A RECONCILIATION FOR THE SALES WHICH AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R REFLECTED A SUM OF C30,50,49,652/-. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT THE D IFFERENCE OF C3,78,456/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE, WHICH STOO D RECONCILED AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF SALES. IN OUR OPINION, THE QUEST ION WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES OR PURCHASES CAN NOT BE CLEARLY DISCERNED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE QUESTION CAN BE RESOLVED ONLY AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER REL EVANT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PURCHASE AND SALES. WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ISSUE ITA NO. 457/MDS/2017 :- 5 -: REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES OR O N PURCHASES AND WHETHER IT STOOD RECONCILED. THEREFORE, WE SET ASI DE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 12THDAY OF OCTOB ER, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- - # ) (GEORGE MATHAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( !'# . $%$& ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) / CHENNAI . / DATED: 12TH OCTOBER, 2017. KV / % '*0 1 2 1'* / COPY TO: 1 . #$ / APPELLANT 3. 3* ( ) / CIT(A) 5. 167 '*8 / DR 2. '(#$ / RESPONDENT 4. 3* / CIT 6. 79 :) / GF