Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member] Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Bipul Kumar Dey….……………..……………………...……………………..……….Appellant Pankoj Kumar Sarkar & Co. Chartered Accountants D-14, R.S. Bithi City Centre Durgapur-16, Burdwan (W.B.) [PAN : AHHPD 7072 M] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Durgapur…………………….…….……...Respondent Aaykar Bhawan City Centre Durgapur – 713 216 Burdwan Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sailen Kumar Dey, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 18th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : March 14th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 30/06/2017.
There is a delay of 276 days in filing of this appeal. After perusing the petition for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit filed in support of the same, I am convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing of the appeal in time. Hence, I condone the delay and admit this appeal. After hearing rival contentions, I hold as follows:-
The only ground is against the addition of Rs.8,10,000/-, as unexplained money by the Assessing Officer. The sole contention of the 2 Sri Bipul Kumar Dey Assessment Year: 2010-11 assessee is that the cash balance as declared by the assessee in its balance sheet was not correct. It was submitted that the accountant made a mistake by showing cash balance as a balancing figure for the reason that a wrong receipt of Rs.8,83,390/-, was shown as receipt from L.I.C. He submits that there was no receipt from L.I.C. at all and that this wrong recording of fact by the part time accountant led to this mistake which resulted in the addition.
In my view, this submission of the assessee has to be verified by the Assessing Officer. If the amount was not received from L.I.C., as shown in the balance sheet of the assessee, then it is a case where the balance sheet has to be redrafted and fresh adjudication be made. In view of the above discussion, I set aside this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the claim of the assessee that it had not received any amount from L.I.C. as recorded. If this claim of the assessee is factually correct, the balance sheet of the assessee may be held as incorrect. If the cash balance has been shown by the accountant as a balancing figure and when the same is not supported by any other material, then it has to be ignored. Hence I set aside the appeal of the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law.