Kamal Nayan Spe.Family Trust, Gandhinagar V. The Dy.CIT.,Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

ITA 813/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80217 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Section: 143(3); 2; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 813 /AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2008-09) KAMAL NAYAN SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST PROP. OF RADHE PACKAGING BLOCK NO. 1075, KADI- CHATTRA; ROAD, CHHATRAL. DIST. GANDHINAGAR. V/S THE DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAAIK 8058L APPELLANT BY : SHRI HIMANSHU SHAH A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 31-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-08-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR DATED 09.01.2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A TRUST AND PROPRIETOR OF RADHE PACKAGI NG WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CORRUGATED BOXES. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 08-09 ON 29.08.2008 DECLARING NE T LOSS OF RS. 78,03,637/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO 813/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 2 WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.04.2010 AND TOTAL LOSS WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 17,53,110/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 09.01.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND. 1. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G ADDITION TO JOB WORK INCOME FOR RS. 7,30,022. 2. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20, 000 BEING L/10 TH OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES. GROUND NO 1 IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF JOB WORK INCOME OF RS. 7,30,022/- 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND ON VERIFICATION OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, A.O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CRE DITED JOB WORK INCOME AND SALES INCOME AGGREGATING TO RS. 2,44,11,371/- W HEREAS AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE JOB WORK INCOME WAS RS. 2,51,41,393/- AND THUS ACCORDING TO A.O THE ASSESSE E HAD SHORT CREDITED JOB WORK INCOME OF RS. 7,30,022/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OR RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, A.O CO NSIDERED THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT A ND THE TDS CERTIFICATE AS, INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE B Y A.O BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5.1 THE AO HAS NOTED FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED JOB WORK INCOME OF RS.1,68,66,208/- AND SALES INCOME OF RS.75,45,163/- TOTALLING RS. 2,44,11,371/- WHEREAS ON VERIFICATION OFTIDS CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED JOB WORK INCOME OF RS. 2,51,41,393/-. THUS, APPARENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAS SH ORT CREDITED JOB WORK INCOME OF RS.7,30,022/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A /C, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED BY THE AO TO SUBMIT THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FOR SHORT CREDI T OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY RECONCILIATION STATEMENT TILL DATE OF PASSING THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE SAME AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,30,022/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO 813/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 3 THE APPELLANT BESIDES JUST RAISING THE GROUND HAS N OT TRIED TO RECONCILE THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY IT WITH THE RECEIPTS AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES SUBMITTED BY IT. SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL BY THE UNDERSIGNED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE APPELLANT CLEARLY HAS NO EXPLANATION. THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IS CONFIRMED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US AT THE OUTSET THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF THE JOB WORK BEFORE A.O OR LD. CIT(A). HE NOW PLACED IT AT PAGE NO. 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AFORESAID RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS NOT BEFO RE EITHER THE A.O OR CIT(A) AND THEREFORE THE MATTER MAY BE SENT TO THEM FOR EXAMINATION. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE VARIO US OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT THE RECONC ILIATION AND THEREFORE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE A.O WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE OF INCOME CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. A.O HAS CONSIDERED THE DIFFERENCE OF JOB WORK CHARGES AS REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND TDS CERTIFICATE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, T HE LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF ITS INCOME. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AFORESAID RECONCILIATION WAS NEITHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE A.O NOR BEFORE LD. CIT(A). WE ARE THEREFORE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT NEEDS T O BE EXAMINED AND WE THEREFORE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) SO THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE REEXAMINED AT HIS END AND THEREAFTER HE DECIDES TH E ISSUE AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT LD. CIT(A) SHALL GRANT ADEQU ATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ITA NO 813/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 4 TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND ALL THE OTHER NECESSARY DETAILS CALLE D FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE PROMPTLY BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSEE SH ALL SUO MOTU APPEAR BEFORE CIT(A) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE PASSING OF ORDE R. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS, LD. CIT(A) IS FREE TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE AND DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE BASI S OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF 20, 000/- OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES. 8. BEFORE US, THIS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BY LD. A.R. AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05 - 08 - 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,A HMEDABAD