S.P.SUBRAMANIAM,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2, ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3095/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 August 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the entire difference might not be suppressed sales, the addition should be restricted. Therefore, the addition was reduced to ₹.5,00,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee, running a petrol bunk, had a difference of ₹.10,71,602/- between sales ledger and sales by meter. The assessee explained this as discounts given to customers for marketing strategy.

What were the issues?

Whether the difference between sales ledger and meter reading, attributed to discounts, constitutes suppressed sales and is liable for addition to income.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Hearing: 19.08.2021Pronounced: 19.08.2021

O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore, dated 15.10.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Facts are in brief that the assessee is in the business of running petrol bunk admitted total income of ₹.10,72,410/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that there is a difference of ₹.10,71,602/- between the sales ledger and sales by meter. When the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to explain the reasons for mismatch, the assessee has submitted that the customers who purchase the petrol/diesel were given discount and therefore, the difference arose. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the explanation and accordingly, addition was made. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that there are certain customers who purchase diesel/petrol of high quantity has given some discount as marketing strategy and submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not correct.

4.

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

5.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The case of the Assessing Officer is that there is a difference of ₹.10,71,602/- between the sales ledger and meter reading. According to the Assessing Officer, the amount of ₹.10,71,602/- is a suppressed sales receipt and added to the income of the assessee. The argument of the assessee is that in order to attract the customers, certain discount has to be given as a marketing strategy. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by considering the reasons given by the assessee, we are of the opinion that the addition should be restricted to ₹.5,00,000/-. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed partly.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 19th August, 2021 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →