BLR LOGISTIKS (I) LT ( FORMLERY BLR INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5636/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84620 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK BATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S C TIWARI; NATASHA MANGAT
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5636/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. BLR LOGISTIKS (I) LTD. 39, FANCY CHAMBERS, 94 SURAT STREET MASJID, MUMBAI- 400 009 PAN:AAACB 3002 G VS. ACIT CIR 6(1) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S .C. TIWARI & NATASHA MANGAT REVENUE BY : SHRI VIVEK BATRA DATE OF HE ARING : 08 . 12 . 2014 DATE OF ORDER : 22 . 12 .2014 PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.04.2010, PASSED BY THE LD.CIT-14, MU MBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y . 2006-07 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE CIT(A) WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S 250 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 DT. 30.04.2010 ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING FULLY THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY AO TO TUNE OF RS.25,07,183/-. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN THE LAW, THE CIT(A) WHILE PASSING ORDER DT 30.04.2010 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING FULLY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U /S 40A(3) BY AO TO TUNE OF RS.1,72,340/- BEING 20% OF RS.8,61,69 8/- WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY EVEN AFTER SUBMITTING ALL THE D ETAILS ABOUT THE EXPENSES. ITA NO. 5636/MUM/2010 M/S. BLR LOGISTIKS (I) LT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION AND HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.4,13,58,400/-. AN AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED W HICH REPORTED THAT RECEIPT OF RS.50,91,422/- WAS NOT CREDITED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF CONTRACT P AYMENTS OF RS.44,90,39,908/- AND THE RECEIPTS AS PER ACCOUNTS WAS RS.73,92,01,754/-. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GET CONFI RMATION FROM THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE WAS A MISTAKE OF RECEIPT OF CONTRACT PAYMENTS AS REPORTED IN AIR. ACCORDINGLY AO ADDED T HE SUM OF RS.50,91,422/-. 3. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THERE WAS SOME MISTAKES IN THE AIR REPORT, WHEREIN DETAILS OF PAYM ENT OF DIVIDEND, INTEREST AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES WERE SHOWN, WHERE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER ON ANY TRANSACTIONS WITH SUCH PARTIES. TH E AO HAS ONLY SELECTED THOSE CASES WHERE THE RECEIPTS BOOKED BY T HE PARTIES WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE AIR OR IN THE CASE S WHERE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO TRACE THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE ATTEMPT ED TO CONTACT TO ALL THE PARTIES AGAINST WHOM THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE, EI THER THROUGH POST OR PERSONALLY. ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED THE PARTIES TO P ROVIDE THEIR LEDGER ACCOUNTS SO THAT SAME COULD BE RECONCILED. THE REAS ON FOR DIFFERENCE WAS SUMMARIZED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE FOLLOWIN G MANNER:- 1) THE DATE AS PER PARTY LEDGER DOES NOT TALLY WITH AI R IN MANY CASES. 2) IN SOME CASES, THE AIR SHOWS DATA IN THE NAME OF TH E PROPRIETOR WHEREAS YOUR APPELLANTS HAD MAINTAINED L EDGER IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM. THUS, THE SAME COULD NOT BE R ECONCILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3) IN SOME CASES, THE PARTY HAS BOOKED SALE IN THE PRE VIOUS/NEXT YEAR AND SO THE YEAR-WISE LEDGER DONT MATCH. ITA NO. 5636/MUM/2010 M/S. BLR LOGISTIKS (I) LT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 3 BASED ON LEDGER ACCOUNT COLLECTED FROM THE PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO RECONCILE THE AMOUNT OF RS.25,84,239/- OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCES OF RS.50,91,422/-. THE LD.CIT(A), THU S DELETED THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECONCILED AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF R S.25,07,183/- WAS CONFIRMED. 4. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI S.C. TIWARI SUBM ITTED THAT, SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION I N THE A.Y. 2007-08, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE ORDER DATED 24.05.2013, IN ITA NO. 3057/MUM/2012. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF UNCORROBORATED AIR INFORMATI ON, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE, UNLESS ALL THE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED BY THE AO. IF, ONE GOES BY THE AIR INFORMATION, THEN THE OVERALL RECEIPTS AS S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS FAR MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN AIR INFO RMATION. THUS NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS IS UPON THE A SSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE PARTIES AS THE PARTIES ARE KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN CONFIRMED BY C IT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PER USED THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT(A). AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION, CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.50,91,422/- WERE NOT FOUND T O BE RECONCILED FROM THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE TRIB UNAL FOR THE EARLIER YEAR AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL, IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENCE ON FACTS IN AS MUCH AS, IN THAT YEAR, ALMOST ALL THE ACCOUNTS W ERE RECONCILED FROM THE LEDGER ENTRIES OF THE PARTIES AND THE FIRST APP EAL HAS DELETED THE ADDITION WHICH STOOD RECONCILED AND ONLY A SMALL PO RTION OF RECEIPTS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO RECONCILE WAS UPHE LD. IN OUR OPINION ITA NO. 5636/MUM/2010 M/S. BLR LOGISTIKS (I) LT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 4 THIS MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROCURE COPY OF LEDG ER ACCOUNTS FROM THE PARTIES TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE AND IF REQUIRED , THE AO WILL ALSO CALL FOR INFORMATION AND THE DETAILS FROM THE PARTIES AN D MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT PROPER RECONCILIATION CAN BE MADE. WITH THIS DIRECTION, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 22.12.2014 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR B BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.