I.T.O WD - 36(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHANKAR PRASAD SHAW, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of transportation and providing fleet services under the ./2013 Assessment Year : 2004-2005 Page 2 of 5 name and style of his proprietary concern M/s. Western Roadways. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 30.10.2004 declaring total income of Rs.4,29,280/- including income of Rs.85,290/- from long-term capital gain. The said return was initially processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1). He, however, found subsequently from the verification of the relevant TDS certificate that the assessee had received contract amount of Rs.1,31,16,529/- from M/s. B.P.C. Limited while the amount of contract receipts received from M/s. B.P.C. Limited was shown at Rs.1,26,90,838/- in the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee. The assessment, therefore, was reopened by the Assessing Officer and a notice under section 148 was issued by him, in reply to which a letter was filed by the assessee stating that the return filed by him on 30.10.2004 be treated as the return filed in response to notice under section 148. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained by the assessee that the difference of Rs.4,25,691/- in the contract receipts from M/s. B.P.C. Limited was nothing but the amount relating to earlier year, which was received in the year under consideration. In support of this explanation, balance-sheet for the earlier year was also filed by the assessee. However, this explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer in the absence of proper documents and he proceeded to make the addition of Rs.4,51,338/- to the total income of the assessee by treating the same as the suppressed contract receipts in the assessment completed under section 147/148 vide an order dated 30.12.2010.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/148, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 4,51,338/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged suppressed contract receipts for the following reasons given in paragraph no 3.2 of his impugned order:- ./2013 Assessment Year : 2004-2005 Page 3 of 5 “3.2. I have perused the assessment order and considered the submission of the appellant. I have gone through the submission made by the appellant carefully and found that the appellant followed Mercantile system of accounting and thereby bills for service charges raised on M/s. B.P.C. Limited was duly accounted for. The AO had made the addition on the basis of TDS certificate only. Amount of service charges paid as shown in TDS certificate includes some amount of service charges receivable for earlier years also. As the appellant had already included such charges in earlier years on mercantile basis so inclusion thereof, in the year of payment is a double taxation. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the addition made is not justified, hence, the addition made on this ground is allowed”.

Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing fixed in this case, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. This appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, being disposed of ex-parte qua the respondent-assessee after hearing the arguments of the ld. D.R. and perusing the relevant material available on record.

The main contention raised by the ld. D.R. is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in contract receipt from M/s. B.P.C. Limited in the absence of proper documentary evidence filed by the assessee to reconcile the said difference. He has also contended that if at all the contract receipts of Rs.4,51,338/- were related to the earlier years as claimed by the assessee, claim for the corresponding TDS made from the said amount should have been made by the assessee in that year and not in the year under consideration. We are unable to accept this contention of the ld. D.R. It is observed that all the relevant details in respect of transactions made with B.P.C. Limited were furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) to show that the bills of the value of Rs.1,26,90,838/- only were raised by the assessee on M/s. B.P.C. Limited. ./2013 Assessment Year : 2004-2005 Page 4 of 5 The said details furnished by the assessee also revealed that the total amount received by the assessee from M/s. B.P.C. Limited was much more than the amount of bills raised and that was due to the substantial opening balance receivable by the assessee from M/s. B.P.C. Limited, which was on account of bills raised in the earlier years. The details furnished by the assessee thus were sufficient to show that the amount of contract receipts pertaining to the year under consideration was only Rs.1,26,90,838/- as credited by the assessee in his Profit & Loss Account and the difference of Rs.4,51,338/- as noticed by the Assessing Officer from the relevant TDS certificate was on account of contract receipts pertaining to the earlier years. As regards the claim made by the assessee for TDS credit, it is observed that the same was made on the basis of TDS certificate issued by M/s. B.P.C. Limited and since the amount of Rs.4,51,338/- pertaining to the earlier years was included by B.P.C. Limited in the TDS certificate issued for the year under consideration, the amount of TDS corresponding to the said amount was claimed by the assessee in the year under consideration. As such, considering all such facts of the case, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.4,51,338/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged suppressed contract receipts and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue.

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