KOUSIK SECURITIES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP WARD -4(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 554/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 July 2019AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the loss of documents due to floods was not disputed. It held that the Assessing Officer needed to verify if daily trades were reflected in stock exchange statements and reconcile differences between financial statements before making additions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned additions made under Section 69C for an unexplained difference in purchase and sale amounts, and another addition due to a discrepancy between ITS statements and the Profit & Loss account. The assessee claimed documents were lost in floods, and that daily trades were not reflected in stock exchange statements.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made under Section 69C were justified without proper verification of stock exchange statements, and whether discrepancies between financial statements should be reconciled by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ SMC BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN

For Respondent: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT
Hearing: 03.07.2019Pronounced: 05.07.2019

आदेश /O R D E R

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Chennai, dated 03.01.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2015-16.

The first issue arises for consideration is addition of ₹23,85,691/- 2. under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

3.

I heard Shri Kaushik, the Ld.counsel for the assessee and Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, the Ld. Departmental Representative. The difference in purchase and sale to the extent of ₹23,85,691/- could not be reconciled by the assessee. The assessee claimed before the authorities that the documents were washed away in water. The assessee also filed an affidavit before this Tribunal. The assessee was able to place the statement received from Stock Exchange. According to the assessee, the statement of Stock Exchange does not reflect sales and purchases made within a day. This crucial aspect was brushed aside by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). The fact that the bills, vouchers and other material evidences were washed in the flood in the year 2015 in the city of Chennai is not disputed by the Revenue.

Therefore, the assessment has to be completed only on the basis of material available on record such as statement received from Stock Exchange. The assessee claims that sales and purchases made within a day were not reflected in the statement issued by Stock Exchange. This fact needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the addition made under Section 69C of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter and find out whether the purchases and sales made within a day were reflected in the Stock Exchange statement or not after referring the matter to the Stock Exchange and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The next issue arises for consideration is addition of ₹1,50,472/-.

4.

This addition is due to difference in sales reported between the ITS statements and the Profit & Loss account in the computation of taxable income. The Assessing Officer found that the sales as per ITS statement is ₹1,17,85,861/-. However, the sales disclosed in the Profit & Loss account is only ₹1,16,35,389/-. Thus, there was a suppression to the extent of ₹1,50,472/-. Since this is a difference between the two statements, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee has to reconcile the difference before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the addition of ₹1,50,472/- is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter and after considering the reconciliation statement if any filed by the assessee, decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on 5th July, 2019 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →