Shamji Maya & Sons, Bhuj V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj

ITA 93/RJT/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6941 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT RAJKOT BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ITA NO. 93/RJT/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2011-12 SHAMJI MAYA & SONS NARAYAN CHAMBERS, BANK OF BARODA BLDG, STATION ROAD, BHUJ. VS. ITO WARD-2, BHUJ-KUTCH. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : ABD FS5 703 J / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY AR SHRI D R ADHIA REVENUE BY : M/S. NAMITA KHURANA, SR. DR ! /DATE OF HEARING : 15/07/2019 '# ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/07/2019 $% / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH - AM : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2011-12, ARISE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-3, RAJKOT DATED 19.02.2016, IN PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ADD ITION OF RS. 15,41,000/-. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME DECLAR ING INCOME OF RS. 2,80,100/- WAS FILED ON 30.09.2011. THE CASE WAS SELECTED UND ER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, ON 31.07.2012. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO NOTICED THAT AS PER FORM NO. 16A DATED 26.09.2011 I SSUED BY M/S. SHAMJI MAYA & COMPANY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,30,41,901/- WAS MENTIONE D AS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED ONLY AN OF RS. 1,15,00,909/- AS RECEIVED FROM ITA NO. 93/RJT/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 2 THE AFORESAID PARTY. THEREFORE, THE AO OBSERVED TH AT THERE WAS UNDER REPORTING OF RECEIPT TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15,41,000/- (1,30,41,9 09 - 1,15,00,909). ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DIFFERENCE AS REPORTED ABOVE SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS SUPPRESSED RECEIPT IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RESPONDED THAT IN FACT THE AMOUNT REPORTED IN THE F ORM 16A WAS LOAN ADVANCED BY M/S. SHAMJI MAYA & COMPANY AND IT WAS NOT ANY KIND OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TDS TEAM WHO HAS CONDUCTED SURVEY AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. SHAMJI MAYA & COMPANY THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON THE AMOUNT OF LOAN ADVANCES WHICH WAS NOT REGULAR RECEI PT. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT ASS ESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AS LOAN AND ADVANCE S. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO HAS TREATED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE U S NOBODY HAS ATTENDED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE LD. DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORIT IES. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD . THE AO HAS ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 15,41,000/- AFTER COMPARING THE R ECEIPT FROM CONTRACT REPORTED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WITH THE AMOUNT OF RECE IPT REFLECTED IN THE FORM 16A ISSUED BY M/S. SHAMJI MAYA & COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT DIFFERENCE AMOUNT WAS LOAN ADVANCES RECEIVED AND TDS WAS DEDUC TED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE TDS SURVEY TEAM. THE AO HAS NOT AGREED WITH THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT AFORESAID DIFFERENCE AMOUNT WAS NOT SHOWN AS LOAN AND ADVANCES IN THE BOOKS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION STATING THAT THE MAIN CONTRACTOR HAS SHOWN THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AS SUNDRY DEBTORS AND THE ITA NO. 93/RJT/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 3 ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH RELEVANT S UPPORTING EVIDENCES THAT THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT WAS LOAN AND ADVANCES. WE HAVE G ONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND NOTICED NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE OTH ER PARTY HAS DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT AS OUTSTANDING LIABILITY UNDER THE HEAD LOAN AND ADVANCES IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WI TH RELEVANT MATERIAL THAT IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS LOAN AND ADVANCES AND NOT CONTR ACTUAL RECEIPT, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF THE LD . CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. [ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30-07-2019.] SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/07/2019 TANMAY / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- $% / BY ORDER & / ' (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !( , ')$*$ / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 17-07-2019 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER. : 17-07-2019 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S : 26 -07-2019 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT. : 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEM BER : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. : 30-07-2019 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK. : 31-07-2019 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. : 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. : 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. + / THE RESPONDENT. 3. *( , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. -./ ( , !( / DR, ITAT, 6. /01 / GUARD FILE.