Shri Bikash Borthakur, Tezpur v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tezpur

ITA 113/GTY/2020 | 2017-2018
Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11322314 RSA 2020
Assessee PAN BAWPB1928D
Bench Guwahati
Appeal Number ITA 113/GTY/2020
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Shri Bikash Borthakur, Tezpur
Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tezpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 17-03-2021
Assessment Year 2017-2018
Appeal Filed On 20-07-2020
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI E-COURT AT KOLKATA BEFORE SRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.113/GAU/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18 SRI BIKASH BORTHAKUR GOHPUR..... ..APPELLANT PROP. BHABA MALINI STORE CHARANGIA BARANGABARI GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM 784172. [PAN : BAWPB1928D] VS. ITO WARD-1 TEZPUR.........RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI VISWAJIT PAL CA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. SHRI SUBHRAJYOTI BHATTACHARYA ADDL. CIT SR. DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 17 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MARCH 17 2021 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2020 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GUWAHATI [HEREINAFTER AS CIT(A)]. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO TRAVEL BEYOND THE ISSUE FOR WHICH THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY VIOLATING THE CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 2. FOR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT EVEN AFTER HOLDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNLAWFUL AND NEEDED TO BE QUASHED. 3. FOR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW IN PASSING THE ORDER DURING LOCKDOWN PERIOD DUE TO COVID 19 WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 4 FOR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 14 721/- OUT OF RS.13 89 511/- ADOPTING THE RATE OF COMMISSION FROM CHAIN DELIVERY OF SERVICE AT THE RATE OF 2.5% AS AGAINST 1% CONCURRING THE SELF SERVING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MISREADING THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS REGARDING PAYMENT OF COMMISSION COLLECTED FROM THE DISTRIBUTORS UNDER SECTION 133(6) & VIOLATING NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO TAKE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2 I.T.A. NO.113/GAU/2020 SRI BIKASH BORTHAKUR GOHPUR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THIS CASE IS BAD IN LAW ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION IN FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AND THEREBY MAKING THE ADDITIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SHOW THAT IT WAS A CASE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS BEING HIS COMMISSION/BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT TAKING PERMISSION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT AND FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS INCOME WAS MORE THAN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY PROVE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SUPPOSED THE TRAVEL BEYOND THAT POINT TO MAKE FURTHER SCRUTINY REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT EVEN IF HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS MORE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE PERMISSION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FACT HAS NOT TRAVELLED BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF VERIFICATION OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THEREFORE HE RIGHTLY FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. AR AT THIS STAGE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REQUISITE EVIDENCE TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME WAS MORE THAN THAT WAS RETURNED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE COMMISSION INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 8% WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS RESPECT AND THAT EVEN OTHERWISE HE HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION IN FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. 3 I.T.A. NO.113/GAU/2020 SRI BIKASH BORTHAKUR GOHPUR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED/AUTHORISED TO MAKE THE SCRUTINY OF A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE IS ANY INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN THE VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE SCRUTINISED AND THE VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR SUCH AN INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES. THE PURPOSE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY IS THAT THE SCRUTINY IS LIMITED TO SUCH ISSUES ONLY AND THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE BOTHERED OR HARASSED ON OTHER ISSUES REGARDING WHICH THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT POSSESSED OF ANY SUCH INFORMATION REGARDING WHICH THERE IS ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE SCRUTINISED/VERIFIED. IF DURING THE COURSE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES ACROSS WITH CERTAIN MORE INFORMATION FROM WHICH HE BELIEVES THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED TO VERIFY THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT RESPECT HE HAS TO FOLLOW CERTAIN PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE AND GET PERMISSION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO GET THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT EXPANDED AS PER THE GUIDELINES FRAMED BY THE CBDT THE FINAL CONTROLLING AUTHORITY OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WHOSE GUIDELINES ARE BINDING ON THE INCOME TAX OFFICERS. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH THE ASSESSEE DULY EXPLAINED. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GETTING PERMISSION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. EVEN OTHERWISE ON MERITS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ON ESTIMATION BASIS WITHOUT OBTAINING ANY CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED COMMISSION INCOME MORE THAN THAT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ADDITIONS EVEN ON MERITS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BEING BAD IN LAW AND IS QUASHED AND CONSEQUENT ADDITIONS STANDS DELETED. 4 I.T.A. NO.113/GAU/2020 SRI BIKASH BORTHAKUR GOHPUR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. KOLKATA THE 17 TH MARCH 2021. SD/- [ SANJAY GARG ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17.03.2021 RS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI BIKASH BORTHAKUR GOHPUR 2. ITO WARD-1 TEZPUR 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SR. PS H.O/D.D.O I.T.A.T KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA .