Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI (Before Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)
ITA No. 327/Ran/17 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12
I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Bokaro Vs Smt. Rita Devi PAN: AHKPD1538K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant/department by : Shri Chandan Das, JCIT/ld.DR Respondent/assessee by : None appeared
Date of Hearing : 11-01-2019 Date of Pronouncement: 5 -04-2019 ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned appeal filed by the revenue, is directed against the order dated 27-09-2017 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh, which in turn arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the ‘Act’) dated 23-12-2016.
At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasions. The learned Departmental Representative ( ld.DR) was present for the appellant revenue. In the absence of any appearance of the assesse, the appeal is being dispose of ex parte qua the assesse after hearing the ld. DR for the revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of ITAT Rules, 1963. Page1 1 ITA No. 327/Ran/17 A.Y 2011-12 Smt. Rita Devi
Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A). was justified by, deleting the addition of Rs. 1,41,78,505/ out of Rs. 1,49,35,723/ 'under the head undisclosed purchase on the basis of misplaced facts that AO has considered opening balance as on 01.04.2010 as purchases during the year under question. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred by accepting contention of the assessee that the assessee has shown in the duly audited account purchase of Rs. 4,07,33,077/ whereas the relevant parties confirmed the purchases of Rs. 4,14,89,295/ , thus leading to a differences of Rs 7,56,218/ but the point to be noted here is that the total amount for the purchase as shown by the assessee in the balance sheet is the summation of the purchases done from 14 separate parties, totaling to Rs. 4,07,33,077/ but the purchases shown by the third party confirmation is the summation of the purchases done from 05 separate parties only, i.e, for of Rs. 4,14,89,295/. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred by accepting contention of the assessee that the Loose sheets showing purchases amounting to Rs 4 ,07 ,33,077/ made from 14 parties was not submitted by him before the AO in course of assessment proceeding. Whereas, it is apparent from the record that the same has been submitted along with 3, forwarding letter dated 28/08/2013 under a signature of Authorised Representative of the assessee Sri S.K.Srivastava. out of the 14 parties five parties were verified u/s 133(6) resulting in discrepancy of Rs, 1,49,35,723/ which could not reconcile by the assessee. 4. Any other ground may be taken at the time of hearing.
Ground nos. 1 to 3 relate to deletion of addition of Rs. 1,41,78,505/- out of Rs. 1,49,35, 723/-. Page2 2 ITA No. 327/Ran/17 A.Y 2011-12 Smt. Rita Devi
Brief facts qua the issue are that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was completed on 27/03/2014 u/s. 143(3) of the income tax Act 1961 on total income of Rs. 10,90,830/-. Further, the case was reopened for reassessment u/s 147 on 30/03/2016 on the basis of objection raised by the revenue party and assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income tax Act 1961 on total income of Rs. 1,60,26,550/-. Addition was made on the basis of the difference between the purchase details and third party's information.
The assessee has purchased batteries during the F.Y. 201 0-11 from 14 dealers of total sum of Rs. 4,07,33,077/-. However, on the perusal of third party confirmation account and the purchase details for the F. Y 2010-11 (Party wise) attached along with the records it revealed the discrepancy of Rs. l, 49,35,723/- of which details are-as under: Sl.No. Name of Party Amount of Amount Difference purchase as purchase as shown by the shown by the assesse party 1. Yatin Enterprises Rs. 73,869/- Rs.5,93,538/- Rs.5,19,669/- 2. Electra Power Rs.1,55,65,754/- Rs.1,69,73,339/- Rs.14,07,585/- 3. Luminous Power Rs.82,53,326/- Rs.2,08,88,558/- Rs.1,26,35,232/- 4. Subhas Distributors Rs.5,000/- Rs. 2,92,807/- Rs. 2,87,087/- 5. Amco Batteries Rs.26,55,622/- Rs.27,41,052/- Rs. 85,430/- Limited Total Rs.2,65,53,571/- Rs.4,41,89,294/- Rs.1,49,35,723/-
There was difference of Rs. 1,49,35,723/- between the purchase details submitted y the assessee and third party's information, During the course of reassessment proceedings the assessee has requested to clarify the said difference with details/ Page3 documents but the assessee could not produce substantial document to clarify the same difference. Therefore, AO made addition of Rs. 1,49,35,723/-. 3 ITA No. 327/Ran/17 A.Y 2011-12 Smt. Rita Devi
On appeal, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition partly, observing the followings :- “ A remand report has been called for from AO on assessee submission. A remand report does not reveal any fact except the fact which was considered at the time of assessment. It is found that the assessee has obtained certified copy of ledger account from AO of parties from whom confirmation has been received which is part of the record. There is glaring mistake found on the part of the AO as he has considered opening balance as on 01 .04.2010 as purchases during the year which is not correct and the details are as under:
Name of the Opening Actual Purchases Difference, if parties Balance purchases shown any Yatri 0 Rs.5,93,538/ Rs.5,93,538/ Enterprise Electra Power Rs.71,85,801/ Rs.1,69,73,339/ Rs.1,62,17,120/ Rs.7,56,218/ Luminous Rs.64,41,014/ Rs.2,08,88,558/ Rs.2,08,88,558/ Power Technology Pvt. Ltd Subhash Rs. 0 Rs.2,92,807/ Rs.2,92,807/ Distributors Amco Batries Rs.91,50,216/ Rs.27,41,052/ Rs.27,41,052/ Total Rs.4,14,89,295/ Rs.4,07,33,077 Rs, () 7,56,218/
The total purchases declared by the assessee at Rs. 4,07,33,077/ has duly been shown in the audited account whereas as per confirmation the parties has confirmed purchases at Rs. 4,14,89,295/. Thus there is a difference of Rs. 7,56,218/ only in the case of Electra Power only. The assessee denied the paper (loose sheets) as has been submitted by him which is not duly signed by the AR or the assessee. In the case of Kanti Lal & Brothers vs. CIT (1995) 52 ITD 412 (Pune Tribunal), It is held that the piece of paper found during the course Page4 of search cannot be regarded as books of account. In this case the assessee is deny the loose sheet having submitted by him. 4 ITA No. 327/Ran/17 A.Y 2011-12 Smt. Rita Devi
The AO did not verify the ledger account of the assessee and tallied the figure appearing in loose sheets. The paper submitted before me is in consonance of declared turnover with a difference of Rs. 7,56,218/ of Electra Power. Hence addition is restricted to Rs. 7,56,218/ only. Thus the assessee will get a relief of Rs. 1,49,35,723/ Rs. 7,56,218= Rs. 1,41,79,504/ only . Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed”.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. After hearing ld.DR for the Revenue, we note that there is no any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). We note that ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order, which does not require any interference. Hence, we approve the order of CIT(A), and Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 5 -04-2019
Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. Godara) (Dr. A.L.Saini) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 5 -04-2019 *PRADIP (Sr.PS) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant/Department: ITO, Ward 3(2), Bokaro 2 The Respondent/Assessee: Smt. Rita Devi, Prop M/s. Ispat Battery, Ispat Battery, Prabhat Colony, Chas, Bokaro. 3. The CIT-, 4. The CIT(A)-, 5. DR, Ranchi Benches, Ranchi Page5 True Copy, By order, Assistant Registrar /Senior P.S ITAT, Ranchi Benches
5 ITA No. 327/Ran/17 A.Y 2011-12 Smt. Rita Devi