I.T.O Wd - 1(4),Hooghly, Hooghly V. Sri Manik Mukherjee, Hooghly

ITA 856/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 85623514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR PANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMNATH GHOSH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 85 6 / KOL ./20 1 3 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 20 0 8 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 85 6 / KOL / 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 7 - 20 0 8 INCOME TAX OFFICER,...................... ......... ....... ........ . APPELLANT WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, G.T. ROAD, P.O. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY - 712 101 - VS. - SHRI MANIK MUKHERJEE,......................... .. ....... ..... . RESPONDE NT VILL. & P.O. ARAMBAGH, DISTRICT - HOOGHLY, PIN 712 601 [PAN : AEHPM 7752 A] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI ANIL KUMAR PANDE, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI S OMNATH GHOSH , ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 30 , 2 01 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JU LY 03 , 201 5 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL : THIS A PPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXXVI, KOLKATA D ATED 12 . 0 2 .20 1 3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE RELAT ES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.32,41, - 38/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO THE STOCK DIFFERENCE UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ORIGINALLY ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) MAKING AN A DDITION OF RS.32,41,038/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED STOCK IN COMPARISON TO THE STOCK VALUE DECLARED BEFORE THE I.T.A. NO . 85 6 / KOL ./20 1 3 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 20 0 8 PAGE 2 OF 3 BANK. THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE ADDITION AND RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION ON THE FOLLOWING POINTS: - (I) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DAY - TO - DAY REGISTER; (II) WHETHER THE SALE AND PURCHASE ARE VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE; (III) WHETHER ANY DISCR EPANCY IS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, STOCK REGISTER, ETC.; (IV) WHETHER THE STOCK DISCLOSED TO THE BANK IS ESTIMATED OR A COMPLETE QUANTITY - WISE DETAILS OF THE STOCK DISCLOSED TO THE BANK IS ALSO FURNISHED TO THE BANK; (V) WHETHER THE BANK AUTHORITIE S MADE ANY PHYSICAL VERIFICATION ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STOCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN MADE THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69B. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) . THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER GIVING THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THAT THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK GIVEN TO THE BANK WAS AS PER THE AUDITED BALANCE - SHEET FILED AS WELL WITH THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE REVENUE AND IN RESPECT OF THE STOCK STATEMENT SEPARATELY FURNISHED TH E BANK OFFICIAL TOOK THE VALUE OF SUCH CLOSING STOCK ON THE BASIS OF EYE ESTIMATION ONLY WHICH IS NOT A VALID PROCEDURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PROVED THAT THE STOCK SHOWN TO THE REVENUE WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE CLOSING STOCK STATEMENT AND VERIFIABLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS. THE CIT(APPEALS) DULY VERIFIED EACH AND EVERY ASPECT AS HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO . 85 6 / KOL ./20 1 3 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 20 0 8 PAGE 3 OF 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF TAX AUTHORITIE S BELOW. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. EVEN THOUGH VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT HE DID NOT DENY THAT THE QUANTITY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CLOSING STOCK SUBMITTED TO THE B ANKER DOES NOT HAVE ANY DIFFERENCE AND ITS ONLY DIFFERENCE H AS ARISEN DUE TO THE ESTIMATED VALUE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE CLOSING STOCK BEFORE THE BANKER. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFE RE NCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. WE A CCORDINGLY DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E STAND S DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JU LY 3 , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH P.K. BANSAL ( JUDICIAL M EMBER) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 3 RD D AY OF JU LY , 201 5 COPIES TO : (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, G.T. ROAD, P.O. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY - 712 101 (2) SHRI MANIK MUKHERJEE, VILL. & P.O. ARAMBAG H, DISTRICT - HOOGHLY, PIN 712 601 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY O RDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .