Dr. Shuvo Dutta, Kolkata V. CIT, KOL - XX, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 678/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 67823514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D R SINDHAL LD
• Assessee Lawyers: S L KOCHAR LD
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, A , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH- A , CALCUTTA () BEFORE , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . !., '# , SHRI C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. $ / ITA NO. 678/KOL/2011 %& '(/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DR. SHUVO DUTTA PAN : AEDPD 5117N COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX KOL-XX, KOLKATA (*+ / APPELLANT ) - % - - VERSUS - . (-.*+/ RESPONDENT ) *+ / 0 '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: / SHRI S. L. KOCHAR, LD. AR -.*+ / 0 '/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI D.R. SINDHAL, LD.DR 1%2 / !# /DATE OF HEARING : 02-11-2011 3' / !# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :25-11-2011 '4 / ORDER . !., '# , ,, , SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.: ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST ORDER DATED 24-03-2011 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOL-XX FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS AP PEAL IS REGARDING INVOCATION OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT ON VERIFICATI ON OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THE LEARNED CIT(ADMN) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE THAT CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,07,000/- WERE NOT VERIFIED BY STATING AS UNDER:- 7. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE CASH BOOK AND O THER PAPERS BEFORE ME. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WERE THREE TYPES OF D EPOSITS OF CASH RECEIVED ITA NO.678/KOL/2011-A-CDR 2 BY THE PROFESSIONAL. FIRST ONE IS OPD CHARGES RECEI VED FROM B.M. BIRLA HEART RESEARCH CENTRE. ON VERIFICATION OF THE CASH BOOK, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ALTHOUGH THE CASH WAS GIVEN BY B.M. BIRLA HEAR T RESEARCH CENTRE ON VARIOUS DAYS OF THE MONTH, THE SAME WAS ENTERED IN THE CASH BOOK AS A CONSOLIDATED AMOUNT ONLY ON THE LAST DAY OF THE MON TH. FOR EXAMPLE, ON 29.04.2006 THERE WAS A CASH ENTRY OF RS.26,100/- FO R WHICH NARRATION GIVEN IS PROFESSIONAL FEES (OPD) BEING OPD COLLECT ION FOR APRIL 2006 MEANING THEREBY THAT ALTHOUGH CASH WAS RECEIVED ON VARIOUS DATES, BUT IT WAS ENTERED ONLY ON THE LAST DATE, WHICH IS NOT COR RECT IN ACCOUNTANCY AND IN LAW. TO THIS EXTENT, THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED WA S FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS. 8. THE SECOND SOURCE WAS STATED TO BE MONEY RECEIV ED FROM HAJRA CHAMBER. THIS WAS STATED TO BE NOMINAL 9. THE THIRD SOURCE OF CASH IS MONEY RECEIPTS FROM INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS WHICH WERE PRODUCED. THE MONEY RECEIPTS ONLY SHOW D ATE, A NAME AND AN AMOUNT. THERE IS LARGE VARIANCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PATIENTS - A SINGLE SET OF BOOK RECEIPTS SH OW PAYMENT RECEIVED OF RS.6OO/- IN SOME CASES WHEREAS IT IS OVER RS.13,OOO /-IN SOME OTHER CASE. THE REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT STATE ANY BASIS ON WH ICH THE CASH RECEIVED FROM PATIENTS WAS BASED ON. THERE WERE NO ADDRESSES ETC. OF THE PATIENTS MEANING THERE WAS NO WAY OF IDENTIFYING THIS SOURCE OF CASH RECEIPT ACCORDING TO THE PRACTICE OF ACCOUNTANCY FOLLOWED B Y THE ASSESSEE, 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE A.O HAS STATED THAT : THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS . IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1), SRI M.K. GUPTA, F CA & AR APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND EXPLAINED THE RETURN WITH REF ERENCE TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, FORM 3CB, BANK STATEMENT ETC. PRODUCED WR ITTEN SUBMISSION AND ALL RELEVANT DETAILS FILED BY HIM. INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE AIR SYSTEM IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN VERIFIED FROM THE SUBMISSIONS, DETAILS OF BANK STATEMENTS AN D ARS EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. 5.1 IN SUPPORT OF THIS, HE FURTHER FILED COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS AND MONTHLY CASH FLOW STATEMENT. BASED ON THESE DOCUMENTS, HE EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE DEPOSITS MADE ON VARIOUS DATES INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE OUT OF THE CASH AVA ILABLE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THEREFORE, HE CONTENDED THAT LD. CIT, ADMN IS NOT JUSTIFIED I N STATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.678/KOL/2011-A-CDR 3 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT,ADMN. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, ON CAREFU L PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD I.E CASH FLOW STATEMENT, BANK STATEMENT AN D THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO AS MENTIONED IN PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE AO AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NEITHE R ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WE QUASH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT , ADMN. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 5 6 , %75 8 9 :' ; 1 '4 #1' 6 1% = > THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. . 11-2011 SD/- SD/- ( , ) ( MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( . !. , '# ) ( C.D. RAO ,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE:25-11-2011 '4 / -? @'?'A / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. . *+ / THE APPELLANT : DR. SHUVO DUTTA C/O M.KUMAR & CO . 4, GANGADHAR BABU LANE, KOL-12. 2 -.*+ / THE RESPONDENT- CIT, KOL-XX, 54 RAFI AHMED KIDW AI ROAD, KOLKATA. 3. 4% / THE CIT, 4. 4% ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . B= -% / DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . .? -/ TRUE COPY, '4%1/ BY ORDER, : /ASSTT REGISTRAR . *PRADIP* 5C %D: E