ACIT PALGAHR CIRCLE, PALGAHR, PALGHAR V. NIMESH MADANLAL MEHTA (HUF), PALGHAR

ITA 5012/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0541 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARJU GARODIADR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIRAJ M SHAH

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -JBENCH MUMBAI , , , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RAM LAL NEGI,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./5012/MUM/2016, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ACIT-PALGHAR CIRCLE-PALGHAR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, BIDCO ROAD,PALGHAR DIST PALGHAR-401 404. VS. NIMESH MADANLAL MEHTA (HUF) PROP.; M/S. SONIM TRADERS, PATELPADA AT. & P.O. VANGAON, TAL. DAHANU DIST.- PALGHAR-401 103. PAN:AACHM 5351 E ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: MS. ARJU GARODIA-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI VIRAJ M. SHAH / DATE OF HEARING: 24.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.05.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER,DATED 23/05/2016,OF THE CIT(A )-3, MUMBAI THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE-HUF,A TRA NSPORT CONTRACTOR,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/07/2013,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7 5.96 LAKHS.THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESS -MENT,U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 14/01/2016,DETERMINI NG ITS INCOME AT RS.1.10CRORES. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.34.69 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORT AND OTHER EXPENSES.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.9 3 LAKHS FROM FIVE TRANSPORT COMPANIES, THAT THE TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE SAME. HE OBSE RVED THAT THE PERUSAL OF FORM 3CD OF M/S.SWIFT CLEFORD AGENCY PVT.LTD. (SWIFT) THAT AMOU NT OF 34.69 LAKHS WAS PAID TO ONE SONIM TRADERS HAVING PAN :AACHM 5351 E,THAT THE PAN BELON GED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DIRECTING IT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED AND AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION 34.69 LAKHS SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED AS ITS INCOME. IN ITS LETTER,DATED 2/2/2016,THE ASSESSEE S TATED THAT SONIM TRADERS WAS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE KARTA OF THE HUF , THAT IT HAD RECEI VED RS.34.69 LAKHS FROM SWIFT, THAT TAX WAS DEDUCTED AS SOURCE AS PER THE RULES.THE ASSESSEE EN CLOSED FORM NO.16A IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM.HOWEVER,THE AO STATED THAT EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT HAD TAKEN CONTRARY STAND.HE TREATED THE AMOUNT I N QUESTION AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5012/M/16(13-14)-NIMESH 2 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA)AND MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSI ONS.IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD FAILED TO CONFIRM THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE B Y SWIFT, THAT SHE HAD NOT VERIFIED THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY IT AT RS.27.57 LAKHS IN THE P&L A CCOUNT, THAT THE AO HAD NOT VERIFIED THE DETAILS OF TDS APPEARING IN THE GOVERNMENT IT SOFTW ARE AS WELL AS IN 26-AS, THAT SHE HAD MADE DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE SAME RECEIPTS,THAT IT H AD NOT RECEIVED PAYMENTS FROM FIVE COMPANIES, THAT IT HAD RECEIVED RS.1.93 LAKHS AGAIN ST COMMISSION INCOME, THAT TAX OF RS. 19,314/- WAS DEDUCTED AGAINST THE COMMISSION INCOME ,THAT IT HAD SHOWN THE COMMISSION INCOME IN FORM 26-AS.A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FAA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME THE FAA OBSERVED THAT TH E AMOUNT OF RS.34,69,155/- IS REFLECTED IN CLAUSE -18 OF FORM 3-CD, THAT SWIFT HAD CONFIRME D THAT A SUM OF RS.27.57 LAKHS WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEDUCTING TAX OF RS.55,139/- TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, THAT AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE, AS ON 31.3.2013, IN CLUDED CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.5.21 LAKHS, THAT THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY LEDGE R ACCOUNT OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AND T RANSPORT RECEIPTS. CONSIDERING THE FACT,THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECONCILED THE TAXES DEDUCTED AT SOURC E WITH THE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT,THE FAA DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) STATED THAT MATTER COULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. THE AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE (AR) STATED THAT THE AO HAD NOT VERIFIED THE FACTS BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITI ON.WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF FACT,AFTER VERIFYING THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY IN TH E INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO WERE NOT BASED ON FACTS.AS NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ORDER OF THE FAA SUFFERS FROM ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY, SO, UPHOLDING HIS ORDER WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAI NST THE AO. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSE D. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH MAY, 2017. 24 , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( / RAM LAL NEGI ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 24.05 .2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 5012/M/16(13-14)-NIMESH 3 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.