M/S PANCHANAN MALLICK & BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3, BANKURA, BANKURA

per rate prescribed by the Food and Supply Deptt. Govt of India at

Rs.1,09,148.40. Therefore, reconciliation made by the AO to arrive at

closing balance as on 31.03.2010 at Rs.5,58,907.70 is wrong. The

assessee gets reimbursement from the Government of West Bengal @10

per quintal on account of transportation charges. Over and above, Rs.10

per quintal if the assessee incurs transportation charge, the same would

be on his own account and he cannot claim the same from the West

Bengal Govt. on the prescribed rate of AAY Rice @ Rs.10/- per quintal.

That is, to say, if the assessee increases Rs.15/- per quintal, expenditure

of transportation charges, then (Rs.15-10) =Rs.5/- per quintal

transportation charges would be borne by the assessee himself and the

Government does not reimburse this amount in future also. The

reconciliation made by the AO is defective because of the three reasons

i.e. (i) the expenditure incurred on account of transportation Rs.3.76,174/-

during the period which has been incurred by the assessee and paid by the assessee during the period April 2008 to 31st March, 2009, would not

become part of recoverable, because this amount has already been

6 ITA No.1386/Kol/2016 M/s Panchanan Mallick & Brothers expensed out (ii) Arrear transportation rebate for the period 2008-09

Rs.1,47,220/- which was already shown by the assessee in the P&L A/c

would not form part of reconciliation, that is the assesse has already

shown as income. (iii) AO forgot to add in his reconciliation Rs.

1,09,148.40 transport rebate reimbursable. Therefore, closing balance

arrived at by the AO is wrong and not acceptable.

6.2. On the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue before us has primarily

relied on the findings of authorities below, which we have already noted in

our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.

6.3. Having heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record,

we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the assesse,

as the proposition canvassed by ld. AR for the assessee are supported by

the facts narrated by him above. As Ld. AR for the assessee has pointed out that the transportation charges received during the period 31st March,

2010 and incurred during that period and has been debited to the profit

and loss account at Rs.3,76,174/- would not form part of receivable

transportation charges. Besides, the transport rebate for A.Y 2008-09

shown by the assessee in profit and loss account would not be added

because assesse has already shown as receipt in the profit and loss

account. In addition to this, the AO forgot to add transport rebate

reimbursable at Rs. 1,09,148.40. Therefore, reconciliation made by the

AO to work out the transportation charges receivable is entirely wrong

and does not base on accounting principles. Therefore, addition made by

the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) needs to be deleted.

7 ITA No.1386/Kol/2016 M/s Panchanan Mallick & Brothers 6.4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 22/02/2017. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (DR. A.L.SAINI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; �दनांक Dated 22/02/2017 �काश �म�ा/Prakash Mishra,Sr.Private Secretary आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant-M/s Panchanan Mallick & Brothers 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent.- ITO Ward-3, Bankura 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Kolkata. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता / ITAT, कोलकाता