M/s. Rishi F.L. On Shop, Murshidabad V. ITO, Ward - 4, Murshidabad, Murshidabad

ITA 778/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87680 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBASHIS ROY
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOLKATA [BEFORE HON BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON BLE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA AM ] I.T.A NO.778/KOL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 M/S.RISHI F.L. ON SHOP VS. I.T.O., WARD - 4, MURSHIDABAD MURSHIDA BAD (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) (PAN: AAHFR 9315 E) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI DEBASHIS ROY, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 04 .02 .2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.02.2015. ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHY A, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - XXX VI, KOLKATA DATED 28.08.2009 AND PERTAIN S TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES LD.CIT (APPEAL) IS JUSTIFIED BY HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.63,906.00 MADE BY THE A.O. IS CORRECT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE OPENING BALANCE, GOOD RETURN ETC. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD.CIT(APPEAL) IS JUSTIFIED BY HOLDING THAT THE ADDI TION OF RS.8,08,752.00 MADE BY THE A.O. IS CORRECT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE PAYMENT MADE BY YOUR APPELLANT AND RELYING ON CREDITORS CONFIRMATION. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY CONFIRMING THOSE ADDITIONS WHEN THERE WAS NO VARIATION OF PURCHASE OR SALE DETECTED BY THE A.O. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : - THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTED THAT THERE IS A VARIATION BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS SHOWN AS SUNDRY CREDITORS, IN RESPECT OF THREE SUPPLIERS OF THE APPEL LANTS SHOWN IN THE APPELLANT S BALANCE SHEET AND THOSE OF THE AMOUNTS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID THREE PARTIES. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN MORE AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING COMPARED WITH THE AMOUNTS SHOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE SUPPLIER. HE THEREFORE, AD DED SUCH DIFFERENCE WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.63,906/ - TO THE RETURNED INCOME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED, IN RESPECT OF THREE SUPPLIERS THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING AS PER APPELLANT S BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2006 WERE LESS THAN THE ITA NO. 778/KOL/2010 M/S.RISHI F.L. ON SHOP A.YR. 2006 - 07 2 AMOUNT S AS PER THE SUPPLIERS ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED SUCH DISCREPANCY, WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.8,0 8,752/ - U/S 69C OF THE I.T.ACT. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS THE L D. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO HOLDING AS UNDER : - I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE. THE APPELLANT S CONTENTION THAT THE A.O. DID NOT FIND ANY DEFECT WITH REGARD TO PURCHASES OR SALES IS TRUE. HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATION THAT THE DISCREPANCY C OULD BE ON ACCOUNT OF OMISSION OF MAKING PROPER ENTRIES FOR THE RECEIPTS IS VERY GENERAL AND VAGUE. ALSO THE CONTENTION THAT FOR THE MISTAKES IN THIS REGARD COMMITTED IN THE SUPPLIER S ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. T HE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE CLEARLY STATED, WITH EVIDENCE, AS TO WHICH ARE THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT BUT NOT RECORDED BY THE SUPPLIER. NOR ANY DETAILS LIKE DATES OF PAYMENTS, MODE OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT BUT WERE NOT ENTERED IN THE SUPPLIER S ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED. FURTHER THE ABOVE ARGUMENT DOES NOT HOLD GOOD IN A CASE WHEN THE AMOUNTS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANTS AS OUTSTANDING AND PAYABLE TO THE SUPPLIERS, WERE LESS THAN THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE SUPPLIER S BOOKS. CONSIDERING ALL, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT EXPLAINED EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE DISCREPANCY CAN BE DUE TO SEVERAL REASONS, POSSIBILITIES LIKE THE APPELLANT MAKING PAYMENT BUT NOT RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . OR THE APPELLANT MAKING PURCHASES BUT NOT RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED AND THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS AND NO DEFECT HAS BEEN DETECTED THEREIN. HENCE HE PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE NOTE THAT AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT HAS MADE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES. HE FOUND THAT THERE WAS DISCREPANCY IN THE BALANCE OF PARTIES AS REFLECTED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE PARTIES IN THEIR ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE NO EFFORT TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. WE FIND NO COGENCY IN HIS SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO FURNISH COGENT EVIDENCES AS TO WHY BALANCE ITA NO. 778/KOL/2010 M/S.RISHI F.L. ON SHOP A.YR. 2006 - 07 3 AND CONFIRMATIONS AS PER SUPPLIERS ACCOUNT RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 0 6.02.2015. SD/ - SD/ - [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 06.02.2015. R.G. (.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . M/S. RISHI F.L.ON SHOP, 41/1, K.N.ROAD, BERHAMPUR, MURSHIDABAD - 742101. 2 I.T.O., WARD - 4, MURSHIDABAD. 3 . CIT(A) - XXX VI , KOLKATA 4. CIT - KOLKATA. 5. CIT - DR, KOL KATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES