DILIGENT MEDIA CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1004/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 October 2021AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the 5 unreconciled transactions. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the details and make an addition only if any discrepancy was found.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned an addition of Rs. 2,99,744/- due to unreconciled AIR data, which was a small portion of their total turnover. The assessee had provided details for most transactions, with only 5 parties out of 862 remaining unreconciled.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unreconciled AIR data was justified without further verification by the Assessing Officer, and the levy of interest under Section 234B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna
Hearing: 25/10/2021Pronounced: 25/10/2021

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in Appeal No. CIT(A)- 12/10702/2016-17 dated 26.11.2019. The assessment was framed by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 6(2)(2), Mumbai for Assessment Year 2012-13 vide his order dated 31.03.2016 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that the issue of mismatch of AIR information amounting to Rs.2,99,744/- is in relation to some parties numbering 5 (out of 862 transactions, 857 are verified). It means that this is a very small issue and I am hearing this appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

Diligent Media Corporation Ltd. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition in regard to unreconciled AIR data to the extent of Rs.2,99,744/- as against the total turnover of Rs.1,58,19,60,000/-. For this, assessee has raised the following three Grounds of appeal :-

“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(A) (“Hereinafter referred to as CIT-A”) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.2,99,744/- on the ground of mismatch of AIR.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

2. The Ld CIT-A has erred in law on facts and in the circumstances of the case in not appreciate the fact that merely unreconciled AIR data of Rs.2,99,744/- against the total turnover of Rs.1,58,19,60,000/- and AIR amount for reconciliation of Rs.22,09,38,000/- for the year under appeal.

3.

The Ld CIT A has erred in law on facts and in the circumstances of the case in not considering the fact that the Ld AO did not exercise his power under Section 133 6 or under other relevant provisions of having the above issue independently verified as to whether the above unreconciled amount of Rs.2,99,744/- was the appellant’s income or not.

4. The Ld CIT A has erred in law, on facts and in the circumstances of the case in dismissing the ground relating to levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act.”

4.

I have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and notice that the assessee’s total turnover is to the extent of Rs.1,58,19,60,000/-, out of which AIR transactions for reconciliation is of about Rs.22,09,38,000/-. The total entities involved are 862 entities/transactions out of which the assessee could reconcile about 857 entities/transactions. It means that only 5 parties

Diligent Media Corporation Ltd. were not traced. The assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) filed complete details in respect of these parties. Now, the total onus is with the Assessing Officer to verify from these parties. When this proposition was put to the learned Sr. DR, he fairly conceded that the matter can be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. After considering the submissions of the learned Sr. DR and going through the case records, I am of the view that let the Assessing Officer verify these 5 entities/transactions amounting to Rs.2,99,744/-. The Assessing Officer will go through the information and in case need be, he can call these parties for verification as the assessee has submitted the complete details. At the most, the Assessing Officer can ask the assessee to re-submit the details. The Assessing Officer will carry out the exercise and only in case he finds any discrepancy, he can make the addition.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th October, 2021.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →