KIRIT KUMAR THAKKAR,MAIN ROAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAIN ROAD

ITA 318/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kirit Kumar Thakkar against the order of the CIT(A), which pertained to the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the discrepancy between the actual purchases recorded by the assessee and those reflected in the books, attributed to input VAT and credit notes/schemes. The Assessing Officer initially made an addition of \\u20b932,91,992 to the assessee's income, which was partially reduced by the CIT(A) after accepting the VAT reconciliation but rejecting the claim for credit notes and schemes. The Tribunal, after reviewing the reconciliations and submissions, decided in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and deleting the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717036 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

"P a g e 1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 318/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kirit Kumar Thakkar, Main Road, Kamdhenu Agencies, Makhija Tower, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) PAN No. AAXPT 3822 C Vs. I.T.O., Ward 1(5), Ranchi. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri R.K. Mittal, AR. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 21/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 21/08/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Ranchi/10772/2019-20 dated 28/06/2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Shri Rajiv Mittal, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, ld. Sr. DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had before the Assessing Officer provided the details in the regard to the difference between the actual purchases at ₹ 10,17,88,434/- and that as recorded in the books at ₹ 9,84,96,442/- to be on account of input VAT to an extent of ₹ 26,61,368/- and the credit notes and other schemes received by the assessee to an extent of ₹ 6,22,624/-. The Assessing Officer did not accept the same and Printed from counselvise.com ITA 318/Ran/2024 Kirit Kumar Thakkar Vs ITO P a g e 2 | 3 made an addition of ₹ 32,91,992/-. It was a submission that on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) accepted the VAT reconciliation to an extent of ₹ 26,61,368/- but did not allow the assessee's claim in regard to the credit notes and schemes to an extent of ₹ 6,22,624/- received by the assessee. It was a submission that both the authorities failed to appreciate that the purchases were shown less by ₹ 6,22,624/- and this was on account of the schemes and the credit notes received and this in fact only went to increase the profitability of the assessee. It was a submission that the credit notes received were liable to be allowed and the addition deleted. The ld. Authorised Representative has filed a reconciliation which reads as follows: Purchase as per Purchase Register 10,17,80,434 Less Inpt Vat included above 26,61,368 9,91,19,066 Less Schemes and Credit Notes received 6,22,624 9,84,96,443 Purchase as per Audit Report 9,84,96,443 It was a submission that the addition as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 4. In reply, the ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that this reconciliation was available before the Assessing Officer and before the ld. CIT(A). The amount of ₹ 6,22,624/- which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is nothing but the benefits received by the assessee in respect of purchase price on account of the various schemes such as in time payment etc. and the credit notes. This Printed from counselvise.com ITA 318/Ran/2024 Kirit Kumar Thakkar Vs ITO P a g e 3 | 3 being so, we are of the view that the addition as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of ₹ 6,22,624/- is unsustainable and the same stands deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order announced in open court on 21st August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 21/08/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi Printed from counselvise.com "