M/S.ZENITH CEMENT AND STEELS,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, CALICUT

This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order dated 14.09.2022 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 15.11.2019 for assessment year (AY) 2017-2018.

Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted by Sri.Vinod Kumar, it’s learned counsel, that the only addition made in assessment, since confirmed in first appeal, is qua unexplained cash deposit by the assessee in it’s bank account by the assessee, at Rs.10.13 lac, i.e., out of the total cash deposit of Rs.199.49 lakhs during the demonetization period. The deposit of cash is admitted, and the assessee’s only cause of grievance is the mistake in computing the impugned sum, and toward which he would take us to a Table at page 3 of the assessment order recording the cash deposit with Kerala Mercantile Co-operative Bank, reproduced as (AY 2017-2018) Zenith Cement and Steels v. ITO under, adverting at sr. nos. 3 to 6 thereof, resulting in an addition, on account of mis- calculation, by Rs.8.52 lakhs: (Amount in Rs.) Sr. Date of 1000 Dn. 500 Dn. Amount Correct Difference No. deposit Amount 1. 10.11.2016 575 1200 11,75,000 11,75,000 -- 2. 11.11.2016 700 200 8,00,000 8,00,000 -- 3. 12.11.2016 600 800 11,00,000 10,00,000 1,00,000 4. 14.11.2016 -- 900 9,00,000 4,50,000 4,50,000 5. 15.11.2016 396 800 9,98,000 7,96,000 2,02,000 6. 18.11.2016 -- 200 2,00,000 1,00,000 1,00,000 TOTAL 51,73,000 43,56,000 8,52,000 (*) Dn. stands of denomination of the currency notes. The matter, also raised before the first appellate authority, he would continue, remained to be adjudicated by it, and for which he would refer to para 3 of the ‘Statement of Facts’ before the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC).

We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. It is unfortunate that the assessee is constrained to file second appeal on matters which could easily be resolved through recourse to rectification u/s.154. Be that as it may, the mistake in calculation is apparent. So, however, it could well be that there is a typing error in recording the quantum of the demonetized currency notes (i.e., of 500 and 1000 denominations, in the Table reproduced at para 2 above). The matter, accordingly, setting aside the impugned order, is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying the fact/s and making necessary correction, if any. Where the mistake is not admitted to the extent of Rs. 8.52 lacs, the assessee shall be allowed proper opportunity of hearing to explain it’s case. We decide accordingly.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the conclusion of hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin; Dated: September 07, 2023 Devadas G* 2