ACIT, Circle-46-Kolkata, Kolkata V. Smt Mira Devi Mishra, Howrah

ITA 671/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4965 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P LAHIRI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 133(6); 144

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 671/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 PAGE 1 TO 3 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA CORAM : SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.: 671/KOL./ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,........... ..APPELLANT CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA 3, GOVT. PLACE WEST, KOLKATA-700 001 -VS.- SMT. MIRA DEVI MISHRA,............................. ..........................RESPONDENT 33, SAILO KUMAR MUKHEJEE ROAD, HOWRAH-711 101 PAN : AHTMP 8351 L] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.P. LAHIRI, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMEN T SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 26, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 28, 2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST AN O RDER DATED 19 TH DECEMBER, 2011 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-XXX, KOLKATA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL)-XXX, KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN G IVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.26,77,732/ -, BY IGNORING THE CONCRETE EVIDENCES GATHERED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (2) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL)-XXX, KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I N THE SHAPE OF RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF PARTIES ACCOUN TS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA. 3. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED TH AT AN ADDITION OF RS.27,79,938/- FOR DIFFERENCE IN SUNDRY CREDITORS B ALANCE IN THE NAME OF I.T.A. NO.: 671/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 PAGE 1 TO 3 2 M/S. HPCL WAS UNJUSTIFIABLY REDUCED TO A SUM OF RS. 1,02,206/- BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). AS PER LD. D.R., ASSESSEE RUNNING A P ETROL AND DIESEL OUTLET HAD SHOWN A BALANCE OF RS.27,80,430/- AS DUE TO M/S . HPCL. LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO THE REPLY GIVEN BY M/S. HPCL ON A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT FOUND THAT WHAT WAS DUE TO THEM BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS.492.69. AS PER LD. D.R., IT WAS ONLY WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER RECONSIDERED THE IS SUE PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XXX, KOLKATA VIDE HI S ORDER DATED 12.08.2008 THAT ASSESSEE GAVE A DETAILED RECONCILIA TION FOR THE DIFFERENCE. AS PER LD. D.R., LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT HAVE AC CEPTED THE RECONCILIATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SECOND ROUND OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 4. PER CONTRA, LD. A.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT THE RECONCILIATION WAS FILED ON 26.11.2010 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF S ET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD CIT(APPEALS) DATED 12.0 8.2008. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN PRODUCING SUCH RECONCILIA TION. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PERSISTED WITH THE SAME ADDITION DESPIT E SUCH RECONCILIATION. AS PER LD. A.R., LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT RECONCILIATION WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON. ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS, THE REFORE, JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT FOR THE SUM OF RS.1,02,206/-. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT W AS MADE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ON 21.12.2007. IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 3 OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREFROM IT WAS SET ASIDE AND REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDER ATION AFRESH. RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN BALA NCE IN THE NAME OF M/S. I.T.A. NO.: 671/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 PAGE 1 TO 3 3 HPCL WAS ADMITTEDLY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF CIT(APPEALS). LD. D.R. HAD NOT DISPUTED THE FACT T HAT THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26.11.2010 B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ONLY ON 21.12.2010. HOWEVER, NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE M ATTER REQUIRES A FRESH VISIT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO DOUBT LD. CIT(AP PEALS) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR-CUT FINDING THAT THE BALANCE STOOD RECONCILED BUT FOR A SUM OF RS.1,02,206/-. NEVERTHELESS SINCE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SILENT ON THIS ASPECT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT HE SHOULD BE GIV EN A FAIR CHANCE TO VERIFY THE RECONCILIATION, AT HIS END ALSO. THEREFO RE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE ISSUE REGARDING BALANCE DUE TO M/S. HPCL BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ASSESSEE WILL BE FREE TO PR ODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER EXPLANATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- GEORGE MATHAN ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.