SINCERE CONSTRUCTION,OBRA V. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 3, MIRZAPUR

ITA 104/VNS/2023

AI Insights

The appeals by Sincere Construction, a civil contractor, pertain to the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, challenging the orders from the CIT (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The first appeal contested an addition of Rs. 18,02,795 due to alleged discrepancies between the assessee's reported gross receipts and those recorded in Form 26AS. The second appeal addressed an addition of Rs. 45,25,000, representing cash deposits during the demonetization period, which the AO assessed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act due to non-response from the assessee. The Tribunal found that both issues required re-examination and directed the AO to consider the evidences and submissions afresh.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41342 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: O.P. SHUKLA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; TDS; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH “DB”, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 103/VNS/2023 2016-17 Sincere Construction, Obra, Sonebhadra, [PAN: AAYFS8438C] Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi / ACIT-3, Mirzapur 104/VNS/2023 2017-18 For Assessee : Shri O.P. Shukla and Shri Awadhesh Dubey, Advocates For Revenue : Smt. Kavita Meena, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12-09-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15-10-2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : Both the appeals filed by the assessee are related to AYs.2016-17 and 2017-18. They are directed against the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. The assessee is a civil contractor. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2 ITA Nos. 103 & 104/VNS/2023 ITA No.103/VNS/2023 – (AY. 2016-17) 3. The only issue urged in this appeal is related to the addition of Rs.18,02,795/- relating the difference in the gross receipts shown in the books of accounts and Form 26AS. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO compared the gross receipts declared by the assessee under various contracts and with the amount declared by the respective contractees as per the TDS returns, which are declared in Form 26AS. It was noticed that the gross receipts declared by the assessee was lower than that was shown in Form 26AS to the tune of Rs.18,02,795/-. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the AO and did not offer any explanation with regard to this difference, the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee offered following explanations with regard to the difference in gross receipts:- NAME OF CONTRACTEE FORM 26AS BOOKS DIFFERENCE PIU, UDAIPUR 3,58,13,500 3,06,29,255 (-) 51,84,245 RAJYA KRISI UTPADAN 1,29,85,332 1,63,66,799 (+) 33,81,467 NET DIFFERENCE (+) 18,02,778 It was stated that PIU, Udaipur has uploaded wrong figures in its account and the contract amount of Rs.51,84,245/- does not belong to the assessee. With regard to Rajya Krisi Utpadan, it was stated that the said organization has under reported the gross receipts. However, since the assessee did not furnish any proof to support its claim, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 3 ITA Nos. 103 & 104/VNS/2023 6. We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the impugned addition is a matter of reconciliation only. There should not be any dispute that any amount/income, which does not belong to the assessee should not be assessed in its hands, unless it is provided so in the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld.CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of the AO for examining it afresh. We also direct the assessee to furnish evidences in support of its contentions. ITA No.104/VNS/2023 – (AY. 2017-18) 7. The only issue urged in this appeal is related to the addition of Rs.45,25,000/- relating to cash deposits made into the bank account of the assessee during demonetization period. 8. The return of income filed by the assessee for AY.2017-18 was taken up for scrutiny on the reasoning that the assessee has deposited cash into its bank account to the tune of Rs.45,25,000/- during demonetization period. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the AO, the AO passed the assessment order to the best of his judgment u/s. 144 of the Act assessing the above said deposit of Rs.45,25,000/-. 9. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the above said deposits have been made out of cash balance available in its books of accounts. The assessee also furnished evidences before the Ld.CIT(A) to support its claim. However, the Ld.CIT(A) refused to admit additional evidences and accordingly confirmed the addition. 10. We heard the parties and perused the record. It is the submission of the assessee that it had uploaded its submissions before the AO in response to the notices issued by it, but the AO has not looked into it and passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act. Accordingly, it was contended that the evidences furnished before the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be 4 ITA Nos. 103 & 104/VNS/2023 considered as additional evidences and hence he was not justified in dismissing the appeal without considering those evidences. 11. Be that as it may, the fact would remain that the evidences furnished by the assessee have not been examined by the tax authorities. If the assessee has made the impugned cash deposits out of its cash available in the books of accounts, then this addition is not called for. Since the evidences furnished by the assessee and its books of accounts require examination, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore this addition to the file of the AO for examining it afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the AO for expeditious completion of the assessment. 12. In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 15-10-2024 by way of proper mentioning in the Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- [AMIT SHUKLA] [B.R. BASKARAN] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Varanasi, Dated: 15-10-2024 TNMM 5 ITA Nos. 103 & 104/VNS/2023 Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, Varanasi 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Dy./Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Varanasi "