SRI VAIBHAV RAONAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1,

Bhubaneswar dated 4.8.2014, for the assessment year 2010-2011.

confirming the addition of Rs.38,21,514/- made by the Assessing Officer

for cash advance received by the assessee.

authorities and materials available on record. The brief facts of the case are

2 ITA No. 409/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1

that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has shown advance

received from 6 parties as under:

1) Debi Prasad Mohapatry : Rs.5,10,000/-

2) Smruti Behera, : Rs.5,12,700/-

3) Chanmayee Rajguru, : Rs.6,20,000/-

4) Fakir Charan Sahoo ; Rs.5,25,000/-

5) Debendu Pattnaik : Rs.5,40,937/-

6) Aboni Kumar Kanungo : Rs.5,75,000

Total: Rs.32,83,736/-

persons were returned by the postal authorities unserved and that the

Inspector of the Department also reported that no such persons are

available at the addresses. He observed that the assessee expressed his

inability to reach the above persons and bring them before the Assessing

officer for confirmation of the advances. Further, the Assessing Officer

observed that the assessee had shown receipt of advance of

Rsw.5,37,877/- in cash from Sparsh Hospital & Critical Care (P) Ltd., who

has denied of having given such advance to the assessee. Therefore, the

Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.38,21,514/- to the income of the

assessee.

opening balance and advance received were as under:

3 ITA No. 409/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1

assessee has shown 30,25,000/- as advance from individuals and

Rs.5,37,877/- from Sparsh Hospital & Critical Care (P) Ltd., aggregating to

Rs.35,62,877/- in cash which has not been confirmed by the parties.

Therefore, he confirmed the addition of Rs.35,62,877/-.

book and submitted that the parties from whom advance in cash was

received by the assessee of Rs.32,83,637/- during the year were supplied

goods by the assessee in the subsequent assessment year and sale invoices

were raised in the subsequent year. Thus, in the subsequent assessment

year, the said amount was offered to tax by the assessee and accepted by

the department. He submitted that the addition of the same amount in the

year under appeal would amount to double taxation, which is not

permissible in law. It was therefore his submission that the matter should

be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying from the

records whether the assessee has sold goods to those parties from whom

advance of Rs.32,83,637/- was received during the subsequent year and

4 ITA No. 409/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1

the said amount was offered to tax in the return of income filed by the

assessee.

submission of ld A.R. of the assessee.

considered view, the matter should be restored back to the file of the

Assessing Officer for verifying from records whether the assessee had sold

goods to those parties from whom advance of Rs.32,83,637/- was claimed

to have received by the assessee during the year and the said amount was

offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year by the assessee, If the

Assessing officer finds that said amount was offered to tax by way of sale

in the subsequent year made to those parties from whom advance of

Rs.32,83,637/- was received during the year under appeal, then no

addition should be made during the year under appeal. With these

directions, this part of the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Rs.5,37,877/- received in cash from Sparsh Hospital & Critical Care (P) Ltd.,

I find that ld A.R. of the assessee has made no submissions during the

course of hearing or in the written submission filed before me. Hence, I

confirm the addition of Rs.5,37,877/- to the income of the assessee. Thus,

this part of the ground of appeal is dismissed

5 ITA No. 409/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08/03/2017 in the presence of parties. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 08/03/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sri Vaibhav Raonak, Plot No.49, Ashok Nagar, Janapath, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward 1(2), Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. CIT, Bhubaneswar. 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack