ITO, WD-33(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARA PRASAD BENERJEE, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 838/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 December 2017AY 2008-20093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings on all grounds. The CIT(A) had correctly determined a percentage of turnover as income, found purchases to be genuine after a test check, and correctly calculated TDS disallowances and allowed machinery hire charges after verifying genuineness.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning additions made to the assessee's income. The issues involved differences in turnover, bogus purchases, disallowances for TDS violations, and machinery hire charges.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not adding the entire difference in turnover as income and in deleting additions related to bogus purchases, TDS violations, and machinery hire charges.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C,Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(2), Kolkata…..…………………………………………….………...Appellant 10B, Middleton Row 3rd Floor Kolkata – 700 071 Shri Hara Prasad Banerjee………………………………………..…………………………..………Respondent 87, Lenin Sarani 2nd Floor Kolkata - 13 [PAN : AGUPB 5726 C] Appearances by: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri I. Banerjee, FCA, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 28, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : December 15th , 2017 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) Central-XIX, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 19/02/2014, for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

After hearing rival submission, we hold as follows:- 2.1 Ground No. 1, of the Revenue is on the issue, as to whether the difference of turnover between the TDS certificates and that disclosed by the assessee should be added as income or the ld. CIT(A) was right in determining a percentage of such turnover as income. The turnover as per the TDS certificates was Rs. 69,48,274/-, and the turnover disclosed by the assessee of Rs.67,47,677/-. The Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs.2,00,597/-. The ld. CIT(A) held that the entire turnover cannot be treated as income and only 8 per cent of the same was considered as income. 2.1.1. We find no infirmity in the same. Thus, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed.

2 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Hara Prasad Banerjee 3. Ground No. 2 is against the deletion of addition made on account of bogus purchase. The ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not given an opportunity to the assessee to demonstrate that the purchases were genuine. He further records that a test check was done and no discrepancy was found in the purchases. These factual findings could not be controverted by the ld. DR. Under these circumstances, he deleted the addition. 3.1. We find no infirmity in such findings. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 of the revenue is dismissed.

4.

Ground No. 3, is against the deletion of an addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of violation of Section 194C of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) had tabulated the amount of materials given to the parties and labour charges paid separately at para 7.2. of his order and came to a factual conclusion that the violation u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, was only for an amount of Rs.2,42,535/-. 4.1. The ld. DR, could not controvert this factual findings of the ld. First Appellate Authority, hence this ground of the revenue is dismissed.

5.

Ground No. 4, is against the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) records that he has examined the ledger copies of the parties and has come to the conclusion that each payments made have not exceeded Rs.20,000/-, violating Section 40A(3) of the Act. He deleted the addition. This factual finding of the ld. CIT(A) could not be controverted by the ld. DR. Hence the same is dismissed.

6.

Ground No. 5, is against the deletion of Rs.2,17,000/-, claimed also machinery hire charges. This was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the parties are not genuine was not correct. At para 9.3. of his order, he records that he has checked the ledger accounts, bills etc. of these parties. He came to the conclusion that the payments are genuine. This factual finding of the ld. CIT(A), is hereby upheld and this ground of the revenue is dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Kolkata, the 15th day of December, 2017. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 15 .12.2017 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(2), Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row 3rd Floor Kolkata – 700 071 2. Shri Hara Prasad Banerjee 87, Lenin Sarani 2nd Floor Kolkata - 13 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →