S.K. ROY HARDWARE STORES,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1, , MURSHIDABAD

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 at Rs.2,67,070/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices were issued and duly served on the assessee. In response to the said notices, the assessee furnished before the AO the details/evidences as called for. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to the suppliers M/s. B.N.Chatterjee & Brothers, which was duly replied. Upon comparing with copy supplied by the supplier, the Assessing Officer noted from the copy of account furnished by the assessee that there is difference of Rs.11,77,595/- and, accordingly, added the same to the income of the assessee u/s. 69C of the Act.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by simply affirming the order of the AO.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that in this case, the Assessing Officer has called for the confirmation from the supplier, which revealed a discrepancy of Rs.11,77,595/- vis-à-vis the books of account maintained by the assessee and the books maintained by the supplier, which was added to the income of the assessee u/s. 69C of the Act. However, we observe that the assessee has not been controverted with the said discrepancy as shown in the account of the suppliers vis-à-vis the assessee’s account. We note that no cross examination has been allowed to the assessee in respect of the said P a g e 2 | 3