Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]
Smt. Swagata Guha Mustafi..…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent 38/1D, Gopal Nagar Road Kolkata – 700 027 [PAN : ADZPG 2923 L] C.O. No. 31/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Swagata Guha Mustafi..…………………………….……………..……………………..….......Appellant 38/1D, Gopal Nagar Road Kolkata – 700 027 [PAN : ADZPG 2923 L] Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-29, Kolkata....…….…………….…….….Respondent Ayakar Bhawan Dakshin 2, Gariahat Road South Kolkata – 68 Appearances by: Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate & Shri Avna Mazumder, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : July 10th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : August 24th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross-Objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 15/09/2015, for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
The assessee is an individual and is an interior decorator. He filed his return of income on 29/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs.20,53,683/-. As there were differences in the figures of the amount received by the assessee as mentioned in Form No.26AS, and the 2 Assessment Year: 2011-12 C.O. No. 31/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Swagata Guha Mustafi amount of income disclosed by the assessee in return of income from M/s. TATA Motors Ltd., M/s. HV Axles Ltd & Axis Bank Ltd., the difference of Rs.1,61,23,430/-, was added. The explanation of the assessee that the receipts in question were disclosed by him in more than one Financial Year, was rejected by the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on Section 198 of the Act. 2.1. On appeal, the ld. First Appellate Authority examined the evidence filed by the assessee and came to a conclusion on facts. He concluded that the difference in question were timing issues between the assessee and the TDS deductors. He explained that in the case of M/s. TATA Motors, TDS was deducted at the end of the year while making a provision in the accounts and whereas the assessee had raised invoices in the subsequent Financial Year and recognized income in the subsequent Financial Year. In the case of M/s. HV Axles, the assessee had already recognized the income in the earlier Assessment Year and the balance was recognized in the current year. In the case of Axis Bank, TDS was deducted on advance paid and whereas the revenue on the same got crystallized in the subsequent year.
2.2. These factual findings could not be controverted by the ld. D/R. These are cases of reconciliation. Thus, we see no reason to interfere in this order of the ld. CIT(A). We uphold the same and dismiss this appeal of the revenue.
The cross objection is only in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A), hence it is disposed of as such.
In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed.
Kolkata, the 24th day of August, 2018.