PENTEL STATIONERY (INDIA) PVT LTD., ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASST/COMM OF INCOME TAX/ ITO, NFAC , DELHI

Pentel stationary (India) private limited, Mumbai (the asese / apelant) for A.Y. 2018 - 19, against the apelate order pased by the National faceles apeal Centre [the learned CIT (A)] th February, 2023 wherein the apeal filed by the dated 14 asese e against the asesment order pased under th April, 2021 by The section 143 (3) of the Act dated 9 National Faceles Asesment Centre (the AO) was dismised.

The solitary isue in this apeal is with respect to the addition of � 61,567/ œ being the dife rence in duty

Brief facts of the case shows that asese is a company engaged in the busines of manufacturing and trading of various kind of wri ting instruments like fountain pen, balpoint pens along with various components and alied products. For A.Y. 2018 - 19, asese filed its return of th November, 2018 declaring total income of income on 26 th Marc � 63,790,920/ œ. This return was revised on 4 h, 2019 at the same income. Return of income of the asese was selected for complete scrutiny under the e Asesment scheme 2019. One of the isues was with respect to the duty drawback.

On examination, the learned AO noted that asese has shown duty drawback amount in its income 16,614,890/ œ however as per the CBIC data the same amount is Rs. 16,89,912/ œ. Thus, there was an exces drawback amount of � 61,567/ œ as per data of CBIC. When asese was questioned, asese categoricaly stated that there is no diference in the income ofered by the assessee as the excess duty dra 61,567/ œ is not an income of the asese during the year, same is shown as duty drawback payable to the government of India under the curent liabilities and paid th to government of India in F.Y. 2020 - 21 with interest on 5 January, 2021. It was categoricaly stated that above sum was shown as liability payable as it was not an income. Therefore, there is no diference in the income required to Page | PENTEL STATIONERY (IND) PVT. LTD. ; A.Y.2018 - 19 b e ofered of the duty drawback as per CBIC and the income ofered by the asese.

The learned asesing oficer rejected the contention of the asese and held that since the asese has not shown its true income and it is the responsibility of the ese to file its corect statement of income and during the year the difference of � 61,567 œ was aded to the total income of the asese under the head income from other sources. Asesment under section 143 (3) read with section 143 (3A) and 143 (3B) of the Act was pased th April, 2021 determining the total income of the on 9 assessee at � 63,852,480.

Asese agrieved with the order of the learned Asesing Oficer , prefered an apeal before the learned CIT (A) . The learned CIT (A) categoricaly hel d that asese has made incorect claim in its income tax return which requires to be adjusted. Therefore , the asese has concealed the income of � 61,567/ œ and the learned asesing oficer has already taken a judicious view in his asesment order rightly aded the amount. Therefore , the learned CIT (A) dismised the apeal of the asese and confirmed the adition.

The learned authorized representative contesting the above adition submited that there is a diference in the export / import data o f receipt of duty drawback and the sum shown by asese as income. He submited that there is no diference betwen the sum received by the asese as per boks of acount and sum received as per