Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH:‘SMC-1(H
Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
ORDER
PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A)-11 vide order dated 11. 0 ft. 2014 for assessment year 2011-2012 on the following grounds of appeal:
“That under the facts and circumstances addition of Rs. 53,092/- for difference in the account of M/s Rolex Hosiery (P) Ltd. vis-à-vis as per Form 26AS for the job work done by the assessee is absolutely unjustified and unsustainable in law and on merits.”
The brief facts of the present case are as under:
The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 14,04,030/- on 29. 09. 2011. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of knitted fabrics and has been doing job work for M/s Rolex hosiery private limited. The return was processed under section 143 (1) of the act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued under section 143 (2).
2.1. During the course of the assessment proceedings the Ld. AO observed that TDS was deducted by Rolex on the job work and there was a difference in the job work amount as per assessee’s books viz-a-viz job work as per form 26 years. Accordingly the assessee was asked to file reconciliation between income declared and the income as per form 26AS as under:- As per form 26 A-S Rs. 3, 50, 143/- As per assessee’s books Rs. 2, 97, 051/- Difference Rs. 53, 092/- the Ld. and AO accordingly completed the assessment order by making an addition of Rs.53,092/- to the income the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AEO the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). Before the Ld. that CIT (A) the assessee contended that there was no difference with respect to the current year job work income from M/s Rolex. It was submitted that some bills totaling to Rs.53,091/- which were raised in the assessment year 2007-08 were not allowed by Rolex in the said assessment year which were ultimately credited by M/s Rolex in the assessment year 2011-12 being the current year under consideration. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT (A) that M/s Rolex had not accepted these bills due to certain objections and defects etc. The assessee submitted that the said amount of Rs. 53,091/- was offered as income in the assessment year 2007-08.
3.1. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT (A) that it had offered the disputed amount for the tax as income in assessment year 2007-08 however M/s Rolex made the payment of the said amount during the year under consideration. The assessee submitted that therefore this amount of Rs.53,091/-would amount to prior period expenses. The assessee to substantiate its claim filed copies of voucher passed by Rolex in their books for assessment year 2011-12, copy of the Ledger account of Rolex in assessee’s book for assessment year 2007-08, copy of Ledger account of the assessee in the books of Rolex for assessment year 2011-12, copy of Ledger account of Rolex in the books of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 and.
3.2. The Ld. CIT (A) however did not allow the claim of the assessee by considering the explanation to be not genuine and not forthcoming from any of the documents that could be verifiable.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
4.1. The Ld.AR reiterated all the submissions and arguments raised before the lower net CIT (A). The Ld.AR also submitted all the documents relied upon by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A).
4.2. On the contrary the Ld.DR, supported the orders passed by the authorities below.
We have produced the orders passed by the authorities below and the documents submitted before us by the Ld.AR.
5.1. From the journal vouchers submitted by the assessee in the paper book and Ledger accounts of the assessee as well as M/s Rolex, it appears that though the though the payment relates to assessment year 2007-08, the payment have been received by the assessee from M/s Rolex in the year under consideration. On the user of us the Ledger account of the assessee it appears that there has been many job works of knitting that has been carried out by the assessee on behalf of M/s Rolex except for a few the remaining bills presented by the assessee to M/s Rolex has been honoured and credited by M/s Rolex to the accounts of the assessee. A few bills highlighted in the Ledger account placed at pages 2 to 9 of the paper book totaling to Rs.53,092/- has not been paid during the assessment year 2007-08. Further the journal vouchers placed at page 1 of the paper book shows that the said amount of Rs.53,092/-has being credited by M/s Rolex to the assessee’s account.
5.2. Patently it appears that the assessee has received the said payment in the year under consideration which actually pertains to assessment year 2007-08 which is evident from the form 26 A- S filed by the assessee in the paper book at page 24. We accordingly send back the issue to the files of the AO for verification of the facts on the basis of the documents filed before us. The Ld.AO may verify the details and may allow the claim. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stand statistically allowed.
In the result the appeal stands statistically allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 19.04.2016