Shri Hari Singh, Rania V. ITO, Sirsa

ITA 634/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9821 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 634/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI HARI SINGH PROP., VS. THE ITO, WARD-3, M/S PANJRATTAN TRADING COMPANY, SIRSA RAINA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.07.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), FARIDABAD DATED 17.03.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,53,821/-. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,53,821/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES FOUND S BETWEEN THE 26AS OF THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON ACCOUNT OF TWO DIFFERENT FACTORS I.E. FIRST ADDITION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF 26AS IN THE CASE OF DUNAR FOOD LTD AND SHARMA TRADING COMPANY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 1,96,084 /- AND RS. 32,787/- HAD BEEN CREDITED BY TWO PARTIES RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOU NT OF FREIGHT PAYMENT 2 MADE TO ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN THAT ASSESSEE WAS MAKING PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION AND LABOUR ON BEHALF OF THESE PARTIES AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M THESE TWO PARTIES IS IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT AND NOT INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE VE RIFIED IF ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO FURNISH THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESS EE AND THOSE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT, THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE ACTUALLY IN THE FORM OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, HAVE NOT BEEN DISCHAR GED. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE C OPIES OF THE ACCOUNT OF THESE PARTIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MODE OF PAYMENT MADE AND RECEIVED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ALL T HE ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT COP Y OF THE ACCOUNT OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAG ES 2 &3 AND REPLY WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PB-1, IN WHIC H ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SAME FACTS THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS NOT THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACTUALLY AMOUNT REIMBURSED. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON THE SAME ISSUE FOR 2007-08, THE LD. CIT(A), ROHTAK DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE O RDER OF CIT(A) DATED 20.9.2013 IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT AUTHORITIES BELO W WERE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATE RIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEV EL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED SPECIFIC FACTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS NOT ITS INCOME BUT R EIMBURSEMENT ONLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED THAT ON THE SAME FACTS THE LD . CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE DECIDED THE SA ME ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. COPIES OF THE ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THESE WER E FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN PROPER PEARSPECTIVE. TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-ROHTAK IN THE C ASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE DATED 20.9.2013. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO FAI LED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ROHTAK. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. IN THIS V IEW OF THE MATTER, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTO RE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR 2007-08. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SHALL GIVE A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17 TH JULY, 2016 4 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR