Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAMIT KOCHAR, AM (A.Y:2008-09) ASL Advanced Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of “Pragati”7/10 Miler Road, Income Tax- 3(1), Bangalore 560 052 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020. PAN:AAACA 7949 M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by .. Shri Nikunj Gadia, AR Respondent by .. Shri A. K. Dhondial, DR Date of hearing .. 18-10-2016 .. Date of pronouncement 18- 10- 2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of the CIT (A)-5, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT (A)-5/DCIT-3/IT-170/2011-12 dated 04-03-2012. Assessment was framed by the DCIT, Circle-3 (1), Mumbai for the assessment year 2008-09 vide his order dated 27-12-2010 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter „the Act‟).
The two interconnected issues being the difference of un-reconciled sale of Rs.97,365/- and Rs.3800/-, a typographical error from the sales tax challans and reconciliation statement furnished before the AO.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee explained that the CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.97,365/- being sales tax for September, 2007 accounted for twice paid to Karnataka Vat Authorities. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the correct figures of turnover, Vat, Sales Tax and CST sales which is as under:-
VAT Sales CST Sales Grand Basic Tax Total Basic Tax Total Total Amount Amount (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 8) Earlier 21,34,213 2,49,777 23,83,990 33,86,486 2,50,040 36,32,726 60,16,716 Corrected 21,34,213 2,49,777 23,83,990 33,86,486 2,50,040 36,36,526 60,20,516 It was explained that the assessee before the AO submitted the details of total CST sales of Rs.36,32,726/- which should be read as Rs.36,36,526/- which is due to totaling error. Considering the figure of correct CST sales at Rs.36,36,526/-, the total turnover worked out at Rs.60,20,516/- as against the CST sales and Vat sales disclosed at Rs.60,16,716/-. The learned Counsel for the assessee reconciled the entire figures correctly and hence, there is no difference in the figures as regards to addition of Rs.3,800/-. But, the learned Counsel for the assessee explained in entirety that the CIT (A) has made an error from the sales tax challans and reconciliation statement furnished before him. According to the assessee, this difference of Rs.97,365/- arose due to the fact that the sales tax for the month of September, 2007 was considered twice by KVAT Authorities. We find that the explanation of the assessee is plausible and there is no difference in the figures as demonstrated by the assessee before us. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we delete the entire addition and allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18-10-2016.