What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the amount in question was a reimbursement of expenses and not part of the assessee's income. Evidence from Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. confirmed the reimbursement and TDS deduction.

The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 21,44,148/- made towards unexplained contract receipt. The assessee's contention was that this amount represented reimbursement of railway freight, not income.

What were the issues?

Whether the amount of Rs. 21,44,148/- represented unexplained contract receipt or a reimbursement of expenses.

ACIT vs M/S. Jain Road Carrier, Baragarh | ITAT Cuttack 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG

For Respondent: Shri S.K.Bandyo Padhayay, DR

Pronounced: 17/06/2020

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), Cuttack dated 24.9.2019 for the assessment year 2006-07.

The revenue has raised the following ground:

“On the fact and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) Cuttack is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.21,44,148/- made towards unexplained contract receipt in the assessment order for the A.Y. 2006-07 ignoring the evidence elaborately brought on record by the AO.”

None appeared on behalf of the respondent-revenue when the matter was called for hearing. Hence, I proceed to decide the appeal of the P a g e 1 | 3 7/CTK /2 020 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 06- 07 revenue exparte qua the respondent assessee after hearing ld D.R. and on the basis of materials available on record.

On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the ld CIT (A) while deciding this issue in paras 3 & 4 has held as under:

“I have perused the facts of the case and find the action of the AO devoid of merit. When M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd have confirmed vide letter dt. 25/02/2013 that M/s. Jain Road Carrier is being reimbursed by them for the payment of railway freight and that railway freight of an amount of Rs. 79,64,803/- has been subject to a deduction of TDS, the AO's query stands answered as a cogent reason now exists for the lack of reconciliation. Further, the amount of railway freight included in the gross receipts exceeds the figure given by the assessee which further absolves the assessee from any charge of suppression of receipts. I have also perused the ledger account of M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (M/s. JSPL) in the books of the assessee and also the reconciliation chart for transportation charges received from M/s. JSPL. Both these documents lend further credence to the assessee's contention that the difference in gross receipts appearing in the TDS certificates and that shown by the assessee himself is only on account of the inclusion of the reimbursed railway freight in the gross receipts on which TDS was deducted by M/s. JSPL. Since the amount of Rs. 21,44,148/- represent a reimbursement of expenses, it cannot be said to be a part of the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 21,44,148/- made by the AO is hereby deleted.”

During the course of hearing, ld D.R. could not point out any specific error in the order of the ld CIT(A), which warrant interference. I also find that M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd have confirmed that the assessee is being reimbursed by them for the payment of railway freight and that railway freight of an amount of Rs.79,64,803/- has been subject to a deduction TDS and Rs.21,44,148/- was deducted as TDS. Hence, it cannot

P a g e 2 | 3 7/CTK /2 020 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 06- 07 be presumed that the same is the income of the assessee. Hence, I affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and reject the ground of appeal of the revenue.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 17 /06/2020.

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. JAIN ROAD CARRIER, BARAGARH

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments