PREMNATH SINGH,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

Issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 1 is against the ex-parte order being cryptic and non speaking passed by the Ld. CIT(A) thereby upholding the order of AO and the issue raised in ground no. 2 is without prejudice wherein the addition on

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the addition was made of Rs. 31,41,488/- by the AO on account of turnover as disclosed in the books of accounts of the assessee vis-à-vis the information as per Form 26AS. The Ld. A.R. stated that there was no actual difference in the turnover as disclosed by the assessee and the difference was in fact on account of service charges and reimbursement of PF on which TDS has been deducted. The ld. A.R therefore prayed that the addition may kindly be deleted and AO may be directed to verify and delete the addition.

The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of authorities below.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the difference in the turnover is merely on the account deduction of TDS on service tax and reimbursement of PF which were stated by the counsel of the assessee to be not part of the turnover. Since the issue required to be examined at the end of the AO. Accordingly we restore the issue back to the file of the AO to examine the same and decide accordingly. Needless to say that if this is not the part of the turnover even if the TDS is deducted on service tax, reimbursement of PF then the same is to be deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.