SHREE NANAK SAI & SONS,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,ROURKELA CIRCLE,, ROURKELA

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.84/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Shree Nanak Sai & Sons, Vs. ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Through partner- Rourkela Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, C/o-T.K.Dutta, R-14, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : ABIFS 1791 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Tushar Dutta, AR िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 25/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Sambalpur, dated 04.07.2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011 on the sole ground regarding confirmation of addition of Rs.13,77,935/- made by the AO on account of differential in gross receipts of sundry debtors ledger balance of M/s Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. & gross receipt of audited profit loss account. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm filed its return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.21.45.990/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory

2 ITA No.84/CTK/2019 notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment

proceedings, the AO noticed that for preceding assessment year 2009-

2010 was under scrutiny and there was a difference in gross receipts as

shown by the assessee in his profit and loss account and Form 16

obtained from Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. and the same was reconciled by

the assessee that the gross receipts as per profit and loss account has

been shown after deducting the service tax amount. Accordingly, the

AO construed that the differential in gross receipt at Rs.51,14,093/- is

inclusive of the service tax payable amount of Rs.37,36,158/-. The AO

further noted that the assessee failed to furnish any reconciliation

statement or reply, accordingly, he added the differential in gross

receipt at Rs.13,77,935/- to the total income of the assessee as all the

expenses have already been claimed by the assessee in its profit and

loss account.

appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) held that the AO has rightly

made addition regarding differential amount which could not

reconciled by the assessee either before the AO or in the appellate

proceeding.

before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

3 ITA No.84/CTK/2019 5. Ld. AR submitted that the AO was not justified to make addition.

Ld.AR referred to the Form No.26AS and submitted that there was no

difference between the assessee company and Adhunik Metaliks Ltd.

Accordingly, ld. AR requested that if a change is given in the interest of

justice to represent before the AO, the assessee would be able to

reconcile the same.

below and objected the request of the assessee. Ld. DR further

submitted that the assessee was unable to reconcile before both the

authorities below, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be

restored.

available on record, we find that before us ld. AR of the assessee

submitted vendor account statement for the impugned year as well as

Form No.26AS but he could not produce any reconciliation. In the

vendor account statement filed before us, we observe that more

transactions are reflecting but the assessee has not produced the

reconciliation statement in regard to the disputed amount. Looking to

the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and

considering the request of ld. AR of the assessee, we remit this matter

to the file of AO to decide the case and the assessee is directed to

produce the required documents before the AO. Needless to say, a

4 ITA No.84/CTK/2019 reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The

assessee is directed not to seek any unnecessary adjournment.

Accordingly, the sole ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.