Pradeep Mining & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Jajpur V. ACIT, Cuttack

ITA 78/CTK/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3727 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G NAYAK
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.78/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 PRADEEP MINING AND CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD., CHORDA, JAJPUR ROAD, DIST: JAJPUR VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CUTTACK PAN/GIR NO. AABCP 8945 P (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.NAYAK, AR RE V ENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 27 /06 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 /06 / 2017 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - CUTTACK, DATED 28.11.2014 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 . 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.58,52,000/ - MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AS DIFFERENCE IN PAYMENT RECEIVED AND BILLS RAISED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT HAS CREDITED GROSS RECEIPTS 2 ITA NO.78/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 OF RS.15,77,37,046/ - . ON VERIFICATION OF TDS CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT TO R S.16,35,89,304/ - . THUS, THERE WAS DISCREPANCY OF RS.58,52,000/ - . THE ASSES SING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFEREN CE . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE OF IDCO L FERRO CHROME & ALLOYS LIMITED ( IFCAL ) , JAJPUR , THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 1.4.2006 WAS RS.3,65,04,6 44/ - AND THE ASSESSEE RAISED BILL S OF RS.10,96,93,632/ - DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07. DURING THE YEAR, IFCAL PAID RS.11,55,45,910/ - FROM WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSEES CLOSING BALANCE WAS RS.3,06,52,386/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM IFC AL, JAJPUR ROAD, ODISHA REGARDING OPENING BALANCE, CLOSING BALANCE AND TOTAL TRANSACTION WHICH DID NOT TALLY WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT E XPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.56,52,000/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.58,52,000/ - AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS FILED DURING FILING OF THE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR CONSIDERATION. IN TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSION, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED DURING FILING OF THE APPEAL THE NAMES AND PARTIES AND GROSS BILLS RAISED DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, WERE ARRANGED IN A TABULAR FORM. IN THE BALANCE PART OF THE 3 ITA NO.78/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 WRITTEN SUBMISSION, LD A.R. OF TH E ASSESSEE REPEATED WHAT HE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO ANOMALY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS PAID RS.11,55,45,910/ - FROM IFCAL AND DUE TDS WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED TDS AMOUNT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHEREAS THE GROSS RECEIPTS IN TOTAL WERE NOT SHOWN. HENCE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.58,52,000/ - BEING THE DIFFERENCE OF GROSS RECEIP TS AS UNDISCLOSED PART OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE US, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT PAGE 15 OF PB, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FRESH CONFIRMATION OF BILLS RAISED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 RECEIVED FROM IFCAL DATED 21.2.2015, WHICH WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AND THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 7. LD D.R. HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE ABOVE REQUEST OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM 4 ITA NO.78/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 OF CONFIRMATION OF BILLS RAISED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 BY IFCAL SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITH RELEVANT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 /06 /2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( N.S SAINI) JUDICIALMEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 27 /06 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : PRADEEP MINING AND CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD., CHORDA, JAJPUR ROAD, DIST: JAJPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CUTTACK 3. THE CIT(A) CUTTACK 4. PR.CIT , CUTTACK 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//