APURBA KUMAR DEY,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), BURDWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1782/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 January 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the lack of reconciliation by the assessee and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. The AO is to consider the assessee's books of account and other evidence to support the reconciliation.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 5,84,454/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors. The assessee's representative admitted a discrepancy in the liability against sundry creditors, stating it was understated. The AO's addition was upheld by the CIT(Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained sundry creditors is sustainable without proper reconciliation by the assessee. Whether the matter requires further adjudication by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Apurba Kumar Dey,............................................................................Appellant C/o. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, ‘Seven Brothers’ Lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly-712105 [PAN:ACWPD6113B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.............................,...............................................Respondent Ward-1(3), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Burdwan, Kachari Road, Court Compound, P.O. & P.S. Burdwan, Purba Bardhaman-713101 Appearances by: N o n e, for the Appellant Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R., for the Respondent Date of concluding the hearing : January 27, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : January 31, 2020

O R D E R The assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan’s order dated 17.06.2019 passed in the case No. 78/CIT(A)/Bwn/ITO, Wd- 1(3),Bwn/2016-17, involving proceedings under section 14(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

2.

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when the matter was called for hearing. I, therefore, decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. D.R. and perusing the relevant material available on record.

3.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities findings making addition under section 69 of Rs.5,84,454/-. During the course of Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Apurba Kumar Dey assessment proceedings, the A.O. made the addition, which was upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his detailed discussion, which reads as under:- “3. Assertion of Assessing Officer:

The relevant excerpts of the Assessment order are as under: 3.1. On examination of the Balance Sheet of the Tax Audit Report it is found that the liability against Creditors is Rs.l,09,554/-. But on verification, the liability against Sundry Creditors was found actually Rs.18,32,832/- and the A.R. of the assesse admitted this fact of discrepancy in his written submission on 22.11.2016. The A.R. also admitted that the liability against Sundry Creditors was understated for Rs.17,23,278/-. The A.R. claimed that the liability against the same creditors was already disallowed for the A.Y.2012-13 for an amount of Rs.11,38,825/-.

3.2. The liability as per Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2014 is Rs.l,09,554/-. The amount against the liability against the same parties as added back in the assessment order for the A.Y.2011-12 for an amount of Rs.11,38,825/- is allowed for exclusion from the total liability. Therefore, the amount of unexplained liability against the creditors for the year under consideration comes to Rs.[18,32,833-(1,09,554,+11,38,825)]=Rs.5,84,454/-. Accordingly Rs.5,84,454/- is added back to the total income of the assessee.

4. Observation and Decision: The appellant is a medicine retailer.

4.1. Grounds of Appeal No.l,2 & 3 are similar in nature and are taken up together. These grounds pertain to the addition of Rs.5,84,454/- made by the A.O.

4.2 The observation of the A.O. is that the liability against Sundry Creditors is Rs.l,09,554/- but on verification, the liability against Sundry Creditors was found actually to be Rs.18,32,832/-. The A.O. has further observed that the liability against the same creditors was already disallowed for the A.Y.2012-13 for an amount of Rs.11,38,825/-. The A.O. has further observed that the amount of unexplained liability against the creditors for the year under consideration comes to Rs.5,84,454/- which was added back to the income of the appellant. I

4.3. During the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant was give various opportunities to reconcile the difference of Rs.5,84,454/-. However, no explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the appellant to reconcile the difference in his books of account visa-s-vis the balance payable as shown in the books of account of various parties.

4.4. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the addition of Rs.5,84,454/- made by the A.O. is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No.1, 2 & 3 is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is general nature”.

Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Apurba Kumar Dey

4.

It is thus clear from the perusal of the above extracted detailed discussion as well as going by the revenue’s stand that this is a clear-cut case of lack of reconciliation involving the amount in dispute of Rs.5,84,454/- forming the subject matter of addition. I, therefore, remit it back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication afresh in the larger interest of justice in view of the assessee’s books of account and other detailed evidence in support of the impugned reconciliation within effective opportunities of hearing.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →