PARTHA SARATHI GHOSH ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 33(3) , KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of Manpower Supply and Sale of Flowers. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 27.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,29,670/-. As noted by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, the gross contractual receipts of the assessee as reflected in the relevant Form No. 26AS were Rs.1,00,70,436/- while the assessee had shown his gross receipts at Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Partha Sarathi Ghosh Rs.90,77,577/- in the accounts. When the assessee was called upon by the Assessing Officer to explain this difference, a reconciliation statement was filed by the assessee explaining the difference. The difference as explained in the said reconciliation was accepted by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs.8,75,556/- and the balance difference of Rs.1,17,303/- was added by him to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed contract receipts.

The addition of Rs.1,17,303/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed contract receipts was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the difference of Rs.1,17,303/- representing two amounts of Rs.1,10,056/- and Rs.7,247/- was on account of supply and repair bills and the same was duly shown separately in the accounts under sales receipts of Rs.1,84,285/-. This contention of the assessee was not found acceptable by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the ground that no details of supply and repair bills shown under sales receipts were furnished by the assessee. He accordingly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that both the amounts of Rs. 1,10,056/- and Rs.7,247/- were duly shown by the assessee under sales receipts in a consolidated figure of Rs.1,84,285/-. She has also filed the details of sales receipts to show that the amount of Rs.1,84,285/- was duly shown by the assessee separately under sales receipts. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended that the amount of difference in question was treated as the undisclosed contract receipts by the authorities below for want of the relevant details furnished by the assessee. He has contended that the Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Partha Sarathi Ghosh claim that is now being made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee on the basis of the relevant details of sales receipts thus requires verification by the Assessing Officer and an opportunity may be given to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. I find merit in this contention of the ld. D.R. and since the ld. Counsel for the assessee has also not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification, I set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after verifying the explanation of the assessee in respect of the amount of difference in question from the relevant record.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on April 22, 2019.