M/s Bright Construction Corporation , Bangalore V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6(2), Bangalore

ITA 86/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3594 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINIVASA B
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISRA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.86/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S BRIGHT CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, NO.340, 10 TH B MAIN, 1 ST CROSS, 4 TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. PAN AAGFB 5762 Q VS. THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - 6(2), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI SRINIVASA B, C.A ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISRA, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.03.2020 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 12/10/2017 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-7, BANGALORE A ND IT RELATES TO ASST. YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.14.58 LAKHS MADE BY T HE AO U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. TH E ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F CONSTRUCTION OF PETROL BUNKS, UNDERTAKING CIVIL AND ELECTRICAL WORK ETC. DURING THE ITA NO.86 /BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 5 COURSE OF ASST. PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THE IR RESPECTIVE BALANCES OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SUM OF RS.1 5,69,814/- AGAINST A CREDITOR NAMED M/S PREM ENTERPRISES. HO WEVER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ABOVE SAID CREDITOR S HOWED THAT THE SAID FIRM WAS SHOWING A LIABILITY OF RS.1,11,093/- ONLY. WHEN IT WAS POINTED, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE DIFFERENCE FOR TAXATION. ACCORDINGLY THE AO AD DED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.14,58,721/-. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION BY FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY RECONCILIATION STATEMENT NOR DID IT TRY TO MAKE ONE TO ONE CORRELATION OF PAYMEN TS MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO. 4. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A RECONCILIATI ON STATEMENT RECONCILING BALANCE AS PER ASSESSEES BOOK AND THE BOOK OF THE CREDITOR NAMED M/S PREM ENTERPRISES. THE LD AR SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH THE ABO VE SAID CREDITOR AND PAYMENTS ARE MADE/RECEIVED IN LUMP SUM AMOUNTS ONLY. HENCE RECONCILIATION OF PAYMENTS ON BILL TO BILL BA SIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE RECONCILIATION STATEME NT NOW FURNISHED EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OUTST ANDING BALANCES. 5. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE RECONCILIATION STAT EMENT IS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE TH E SAME REQUIRES AT THE END OF THE AO. ITA NO.86 /BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 5 6. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN ITS WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THE LEDGER A CCOUNT COPY OBTAINED BY THE AO FROM M/S PREM ENTERPRISES. HOWE VER, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, MEAN ING THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO HAVE OBTAINED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY FROM THE ABOVE SAID PARTY. HOWEVER, THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY PROCURED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. HOWEVER, HAVING HEARD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO BY DULY CONS IDERING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OBTAINED BY THE AO AS WELL AS T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE IMPUGNED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR EXAMINING IT AFRESH BY DULY CONSIDERING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF THE AS SESSEE. AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME THE AO MAY TAKE APPROPRIATE DECI SION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH MARCH, 2020. SD/ - (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, 5 TH MARCH, 2020. / VMS / ITA NO.86 /BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. ITA NO.86 /BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 5 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. .. 14. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED