Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri J.S. Reddy, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA Before Shri J.S. Reddy, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM Assessment Year 2008-09 Income Tax Officer...............................……………………………….................................Appellant Ward 12(1), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. [PAN: AADCS 6713 N] M/s. Sudha Jweellers Pvt. Ltd....................………………………………………….......Respondent 2/1A, Gariahat Road, Kolkata – 700 019. Assessment Year 2008-09 M/s. Sudha Jweellers Pvt. Ltd....................…………………………………………..........Appellant 2/1A, Gariahat Road, Kolkata – 700 019. Income Tax Officer...............................………………………………............................Respondent Ward 12(1), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. [PAN: AADCS 6713 N] Appearances by: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Date of concluding the hearing : July 18, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : October 10th , 2018 ORDER SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM These two cross-appeals by the revenue and assessee against common order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the CIT(A) – 4, Kolkata for Assessment Year 2008-09.
First we shall take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA 2418/Kol/2016 for A.Y. 2008-09.
The only issue is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in restricting the addition to 20% of total purchase in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is noted from the record that the assessee is a company and conducts its business in the name and style of M/s. Sudha Jewellers (P) Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to furnish various details and documents regarding the purchases amounting to Rs. 85,15,536/-. According to AO in para no 11, the AR representing assessee appeared on 30.11.2015 and submitted the details of purchase and bank account. The AR expressed his inability to produce the details of sales stating the same were old. Further, the AO issued a letter dated 22.12.2015 asking the assessee various details regarding the purchase of diamonds from the parties, their copy of ledgers, invoice, stock register and other documents and details substantiating the genuineness of said purchases. It is noted from the assessment records at page no 13 that no copies of invoice of the parties were produced before the AO. For no explanation by the assessee and for not filing supporting documents added an amount of Rs. 85,15,634/- to the total income of the assessee.
The CIT(A) in his order at para no 5.1 held that all the purchases and sales are fully vouched and verifiable. The CIT(A) examined the details of purchase, sale, consumption and closing stock which were filed before the AO as well and found satisfied the payments for the said purchases were made by account payee cheques. But, however directed the AO to add a sum of Rs. 17,03,107/- which is 20% of the addition of Rs. 85,15,534/-.
The learned AR placed on record order dated 28.03.2018 passed by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. M.B. Jewellers & sons for A.Y. 2007-08 and submits that the facts and circumstances and the issue involved therein are identical and similar to the issue on hand. The learned AR argued the revenue could not demonstrate either the money was not paid or the money was paid and referred to para no 7 of the said order. On perusal of the said order, we find the facts are identical and the issue decided by the Tribunal is similar. Further, we find the Tribunal in the case of (supra) placed reliance in the caes Monaj Begani in ITA 932/Kol/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09, to 935/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 and observed that the Tribunal in the above-mentioned cases had discussed the modus operandi of all the transactions on various angles and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. We find the CIT(A) found satisfied that all the purchases and sales were fully vouched and verifiable. The assessee maintained proper books of account including stock register, the payment for all purchases were made for account payee cheques. The receipts for each of the sales were also by account payee cheques. The bank statement shows the receipt and payment in the bank account were verifiable. The bills contained name, address as well as the sales tax nos both Gujarat and Central Government work recorded along with the PAN and those parties. Therefore, the issued decided by the Tribunal in the above-mentioned cases along with the findings of the CIT(A), we are of the opinion, an addition made by the CIT(A) is not maintainable and it is deleted. Thus ground no 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed.
Next we shall take up the assessee’s appeal 2389/Kol/2016.
In this appeal the assessee raised effective grounds from 3 to 5 challenging the addition restricted by the CIT(A) at 20% of total addition made by the AO. In the afore mentioned paragraphs, we decided the issue in favour of the assessee and deleted the entire addition made by the AO by placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. M.B. Jewellers & sons. Since we have deleted the said addition and grounds raised in this appeal by the assessee have become academic and no adjudication is required. Therefore, the effective grounds raised in 3 to 5 are dismissed. Ground No. 1 and 6 is general in nature requires no adjudication, hence they are dismissed. Ground No. 2 is not pressed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 10th October, 2018.