CHARANGATH VELAYUDHAN JAYARAJAN,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1798/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2023AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reconciliation statement, which reduced the unreconciled difference to Rs. 7,41,707. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the reconciliation and documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a civil contractor, showed a turnover of Rs. 4,98,43,684 in its books. However, Form 26AS reflected total receipts of Rs. 6,06,82,577, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,08,38,893 by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer correctly confirmed the addition based on the difference between the books of account and Form 26AS, without properly considering the assessee's reconciliation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Shri Saksham Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.06.2023Pronounced: 05.06.2023

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 30.11.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which resulted from the difference in total turnover shown by the assessee in its books of account, and the same appearing in Form No. 26AS.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of civil contractor. For the year under consideration, the assessee has shown total turnover at Rs. 4,98,43,684/-. On perusal of Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer found that total receipts on which tax was deducted at source was at Rs. 6,06,82,577/-. The assessee was asked to explain the difference.

4.

The assessee filed reply, which did not find favour with the Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 1,08,38,893/-.

5.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee straightaway drew our attention to the following reconciliation statement:

Total Turnover other than Work not Certified in P&L Account 4,98,43,684 Work done but not certified already credited in P&L Account 45,86,076 Interest on FDR already included in income from other sources 3,27,320 Total Amount included in P&L Account & offered to tax 5,47,57,080 Add: Service fax included in Form 26AS as transaction reported by deductee inclusive of service tax. 48,10,990 Difference between final Invoices raised in AY 2015-16 included 49,43,476 in Form 26AS & work not certified included in income for AY 2014- 15 45,86,076 3,57,400 Service Tax Amount of Invoice reflected in Form 26AS and income already included in A.Y. 2013-14 15,400 Total 5,99,40,870 Total Turnover as per Form 26AS 6,06,82,577 Difference 7,41,707

6.

It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed such details before both the lower authorities, which were never considered by them. The ld. counsel for the assessee further drew our attention to the relevant documentary evidences brought on record and pointed out that if the details are considered, there would only remain a difference of Rs. 7,41,707/-, for which the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the same may be added back.

7.

We have carefully considered the reconciliation statement vis-a- vis the relevant documents. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the reconciliation statement and, if found correct, only difference which remained unreconciled should be added back.

8.

We further direct the Assessing Officer to consider the applicability of profit rate after examining the reconciliation statement and decide the same afresh after affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →