SRI SHYAM SUNDER GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-50(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1337/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 February 2020AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the supplier's statement on oath, supported by deposit details, was sufficient evidence. The assessee's denial and failure to seek cross-examination of the supplier were also considered.

What were the facts?

A survey was conducted at the assessee's business premises, and a supplier's statement indicated that bank deposits in the supplier's account represented the assessee's undisclosed sales. The AO added the estimated profit on these sales, which the CIT(A) partially sustained.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition based on a third-party statement, even if denied by the assessee, is valid, and if the assessee was denied an opportunity for cross-examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ)]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC)’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ)] Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Shyam Sunder Ghosh......................................…………………………...........................Appellant C/o. M/s. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 072. [PAN: ADNPG 5721 C] Vs ITO, Ward – 50(4), Kolkata...................……………………………………………….............Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Appearances by: Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 13, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : February 21, 2020 ORDER

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 15, Kolkata dated 29.03.2019 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition of Rs. 3,05,429/- made by the AO on account of alleged profit on undisclosed sales which is sustained by the Ld. CIT(A0 to the extent of Rs. 22,810/-.

2.

The assessee in the present case is an individual. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.09.2013. Thereafter, the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 30.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 16,69,200/-. As noted by the AO, a survey was also carried out at the business place of Shri Arup Kr. Deb who was a supplier of the assessee. In the statement recorded during the course of survey, it was stated by Shri Arup Kr. Dev that the bank

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Shyam Sunder Ghosh deposits found to be made in his bank account aggregating to Rs. 13,39,014/- represented the sale proceeds of the assessee’s business and the same were deposited by the customers of the assessee in his bank account. Although the assessee denied this allegation made by Shri Arup Kr. Deb, the AO keeping in view the categorical statement made by Shri Arup Kr. Dev on oath and the relevant details of deposits given by him date wise, held that the amount of Rs. 13,39,014/- represented suppressed sales of the assessee. Accordingly, gross profit of Rs. 3,05,429/- calculated @ 22.81% on such sales was treated by him as the income of the assessee and addition to that extent was made by him to the total income of the assessee.

3.

The addition of Rs. 3,05,429/- made by the AO on account of the alleged profit on undisclosed sales was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and keeping in view that the relevant deposits found to be made in the bank account of Shri Arup Kr. Dev only to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh were pertained to the year under consideration, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition of Rs. 3,05,429/- made by the AO to Rs. 22,810/- being gross profit @ 22.81% of Rs. 1 lakh. Still aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the impugned addition on account of the alleged profit on undisclosed sales is made merely on the basis of the Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Shyam Sunder Ghosh statement of a third party which was out rightly denied by the assessee right from the beginning. It is however observed that Shri Arup Kr. Dev was a supplier of the assessee and the assertion regarding sale proceeds of the assessee’s business having been deposited in his bank account by the customers of the assessee was made by him in the statement recorded on oath. Moreover, the date wise details of such deposits were also furnished by Shri Arup Kr. Dev. The learned counsel for the assessee has also contended that the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Arup Kr. Dev was never given to the assessee. In this regard, it is observed that the copy of statement of Shri Arup Kr. Dev recorded during the course of survey was given by the AO to the assessee and there is nothing on record to show that the cross-examination of the deponent was ever sought by the assessee. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO on this issue to the extent of Rs. 22,810/- does not call for any interference and upholding the same, I dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21st February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →