ITO, W-41(1), NADIA,NADIA vs. SMT. SIMA SAHA, NADIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2369/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 April 2017AY 2012-135 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 held that the security deposit was duly reflected in the assessee's books of accounts, either as a reduction in liability or an asset. Since the investment was recorded, the addition made by the AO was unwarranted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 43,74,312/- by the CIT(A). The addition was made by the AO on the grounds that a trade deposit paid by the assessee was not disclosed as an asset in the balance sheet.

What were the issues?

Whether a trade deposit, reflected in the balance sheet as a reduction of liability, constitutes an undisclosed investment or income. Whether the AO was justified in making an addition when the transaction was recorded in the books of account.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM]

I.T.O., Ward-41(1) -vs.- Smt. Sima Saha Nadia Nadia. [PAN : AOQPS 6923 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Alok Nag, JCIT For the Respondent : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Date of Hearing : 06.04.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM

This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 07.09.2016 of C.I.T.(A)-12, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue read as follows :- “The Trade deposit of Rs.43,74,312/- was not disclosed in Balance Sheet as an asset in respect of future distributor and an amount of only Rs.93,991/- was shown as an asset against the party. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief without proper verification & remand to the AO. “

3.

The Assessee is an individual carrying on business of lottery. In the course of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), the AO issued a notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to M/S.Future Plus Enterprise Private Ltd., who replied to the AO that the Assessee had made a security deposit to the tune of Rs.43,74,312/- to M/s. Future Plus Enterprise Private Ltd. The assessee was issued a show cause letter asking an explanation regarding the security deposit. The Assessee vide its letter dated nil filed in the office of the AO on 27.3.2015 explained that during the financial year 2011-12, the Assessee had purchased lottery tickets from M/S.Future Distributor for the period

Smt. Sima Saha A.Yr.2012-13 from 1.4.2011 to 8.5.2011 and from Future Plus Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. for the period from 9.5.2011 to 31.3.2011. The Assessee explained that as per the agreement with the above mentioned parties, the Assessee has to pay trade deposit with them on the basis of number of tickets purchased from them which would be adjusted periodically against payments to be made by the Assessee after sale of lottery tickets by the Assessee. The Assessee would in turn sell lottery tickets to sub-stockist and would collect security deposits from the sub-stockist. The Assessee explained it paid Rs. 43,74,312 to Future Plus Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., as trade deposit from and out of 51,47,062, the Assessee had collected from its sub-stockists. The amount collected by the Assessee from its sub- stockists as security deposit and other borrowings were totalled and the amount Assessee paid Future Plus Enterprise Pvt. Ltd was reduced and the net liability figure was shown by the Assessee in the Balance Sheet. The security deposit paid to Future Plus Enterprise Pvt.Ltd., was thus shown in the balance sheet and the presumption of the AO that the same was not reflected in the books of accounts was not correct. The following the manner in which the security deposit received and paid and the net security deposit payable was shown in the balance sheet as liability by the Assessee. Trade Advance from Party . 51,47,062 (Cr) Advance from husband 29,00,000 (Cr) Total advance - 80,47,062 (Cr) Less, Trade advance to Future Plus Ent Pvt Ltd : 43.74,312 (Dr) Advance from party as per balance sheet : 36,72,750 (Cr)

4.

The AO after making an observation in the order of assessment that the explanation and clarification, offered by the assessee, is not upto the mark and does not contain adequate grounds added the sum of Rs.43, 74,312/- as undisclosed income of the Assessee.

Smt. Sima Saha A.Yr.2012-13 5. Before CIT(A), the Assessee reiterated submissions made before the AO and further submitted that the AO without investigating the stand taken by the Assessee has made the addition and the same should be deleted.

6.

The CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the Assessee and deleted the addition made by the AO, observing as follows: “4.2. I have considered the submissions of the appellant and the facts of the case. The AO added back the security deposit to the tune of Rs.43,74,312/- which was paid to M/s. Future Plus Enterprise Private Ltd. The appellant has pointed out the reasons which necessitated trade advance . This is part of the lottery trade and the appellant pays trade advance to its creditor and other parties pay to the appellant . This safeguards the parties involved in this business. The appellant has submitted that "The total amount of trade deposit received from my sundry debtors as on 31s1 March, 2012 is Rs. 51,47,062/--(Credit Balance). During the financial year 2011-12 you appellant has debited Advance From Parties Account by a debit balance of Rs. 43,74,312/- with future plus enterprise Pvt Ltd and has credited Rs. 51,47,063/- on account of Trade advance taken from Sub-stockists/Agents/ retailers. Further an advance taken from your appellant's husband Mr D. Saha Rs. 29,00,000 (Cr) /- which I have shown under Advance from party in the balance sheet as at 31.03.2012, The net Advance from Party of Rs. 36,72,750/- Shown as Advance From Party in the balance sheet as at 31.03.2012 includes debit balance of Trade Deposit with Future Plus Enterprise Pvt Ltd. Books of account along with details from Advance from Parties, confirmation from Sub- stockists/Agents/ retailers supporting our claims was submitted before the A.

0.

Appellant is depicting the gist of the account advance from parties for your kind note and records. Trade Advance from Party . 51,47,062 (Cr) Advance from husband 29,00,000 (Cr) Total advance - 80,47,062 (Cr) Less, Trade advance to Future Plus Ent Pvt Ltd : 43.74,312 (Dr) Advance from party as per balance sheet : 36,72,750 (Cr) The details submitted have been verified and cross checked with the Balance Sheet and thus I find force in the contention of the appellant and the amount of Rs.43,74,312/- added back by the AO is deleted .”

7.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. I have heard the submission of the learned DR and the learned 3 Smt. Sima Saha A.Yr.2012-13 counsel for the Assessee. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO and submitted that the details filed before CIT(A) should be looked into by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee pointed out that the details that were before CIT(A) were all filed before AO in the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the grievance projected by the learned DR is not correct.

8.

I have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. The addition made by the AO is by invoking the provisions of Sec.69 or 69A of the Act. In both the aforesaid provisions, the requirement is that the investments or unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article should not have been found recorded in the books of accounts of the Assessee. From the explanation given by the Assessee, which has not been shown to be incorrect by the Revenue, it is clear that the security deposit with M/S.Future Plus Enterprise Pvt.Ltd., is duly reflected in the books of accounts of the Assessee. In the grounds of appeal

, the revenue has contended that the security deposit in question ought to have been shown in the asset side of the Balance sheet. As we have already seen this has been taken into account by reduction in the liability side of the Balance Sheet and therefore the effect is one and the same. As we have already stated the addition can be made only when the investment is not recorded in the books of accounts. Since the investment is found to be recorded in the books of accounts, I am of the view that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and I hold that the addition was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). I find no merits in this appeal by the revenue and therefore dismiss the same.

9. In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 12.04.2017.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →