PRADEEP MINING & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.78/CTK/2015 Assessment Year :2007-08

Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack Pradeep Mining and Construction Pvt Ltd., Chorda, Jajpur Road, Dist: Jajpur PAN/GIR No. AABCP 8945 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri G.Nayak, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Date of Hearing : 27/06/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27 /06/ 2017

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-

Cuttack, dated 28.11.2014, for the assessment year 2007-08.

in sustaining the addition of Rs.58,52,000/- made by the Assessing Officer

as difference in payment received and bills raised.

assessee company in its profit and loss account has credited gross receipts

2 ITA No. 78/ CTK/2015 Asse ssment Year :20 07- 08

of Rs.15,77,37,046/-. On verification of TDS certificate, the Assessing

Officer found that the gross receipts of the assessee worked out to

Rs.16,35,89,304/-. Thus, there was discrepancy of Rs.58,52,000/-. The

Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the difference. The

assessee submitted that as per TDS certificate of IDCOL Ferro Chrome &

Alloys Limited (IFCAL), Jajpur, the opening balance of the assessee on

1.4.2006 was Rs.3,65,04,644/- and the assessee raised bills of

Rs.10,96,93,632/- during the financial year 2006-07. During the year,

IFCAL paid Rs.11,55,45,910/- from which TDS was deducted. The

assessee’s closing balance was Rs.3,06,52,386/-. The Assessing Officer

then received information from IFCAL, Jajpur Road, Odisha regarding

opening balance, closing balance and total transaction which did not tally

with the submission of the assessee company. Since the assessee could

not explain the difference of Rs.56,52,000/-, the Assessing Officer held that

the assessee has not disclosed income of Rs.58,52,000/- and added the

same to the income of the assessee.

filing of the appeal may be taken into account for consideration. In the

written submission, ld A.R. of the assessee provided during filing of the

appeal the names and parties and gross bills raised during assessment year

2007-08, were arranged in a tabular form. In the balance part of the

3 ITA No. 78/ CTK/2015 Asse ssment Year :20 07- 08

written submission, ld A.R. of the assessee repeated what he submitted

before the Assessing Officer.

5 The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee observed

that there was no anomaly in the action of the Assessing Officer because

the assessee was paid Rs.11,55,45,910/- from IFCAL and due TDS was

deducted from the same. The assessee company had claimed TDS amount

in its return of income whereas the gross receipts in total were not shown.

Hence, he confirmed the addition of Rs.58,52,000/- being the difference of

gross receipts as undisclosed part of income by the assessee.

the assessee has filed fresh confirmation of bills raised during the financial

year 2006-07 received from IFCAL dated 21.2.2015, which was obtained

by the assessee after the assessment was made and the appeal was

decided by the CIT(A). He submitted that the said additional evidence may

be accepted and the matter may be restored back to the file of the

Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issue in the light of the said

additional evidence.

assessee.

available on record, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of

substantial justice, the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form

4 ITA No. 78/ CTK/2015 Asse ssment Year :20 07- 08

of confirmation of bills raised during the financial year 2006-07 by IFCAL

should be accepted and the matter may be restored back to the file of the

Assessing Officer for adjudicating the issue afresh after verifying the

additional evidence with relevant records of the assessee and books of

account of the assessee. We order accordingly. It is needless to mention

that the Assessing Officer shall allow reasonable and adequate opportunity

of hearing to the assessee. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is

allowed.

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27 /06/2017 in the presence of parties. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 27 /06/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Pradeep Mining and Construction Pvt Ltd., Chorda, Jajpur Road, Dist: Jajpur 2. The Respondent. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A) Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack