ITO,Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Kolkata v. M/s U.C.Das & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 710/KOL/2012 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2014

Appeal Details

RSA Number 71023514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAACU3910C
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 710/KOL/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant ITO,Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Kolkata
Respondent M/s U.C.Das & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2014
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 04-05-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KO LKATA ( ) 1 BEFORE HONBLE SRI SHAMIM YAHYA AM & HONBLE SRI GEORGE MATHAN JM $ / ITA NO. 710/KOL/12 A.Y 2008-09 I.T.O WARD 9(1) KOLKATA % % - VERSUS -. M/S. U.C. DAS & CO.PVT. LTD PAN: AAACU3910C ( ' / APPELLANT ) ( )*' / RESPONDENT ) C.O NO. 59/KOL/2012 [ IN ITA NO. 710/KOL/2012 A.Y 2 008-09] M/S. U.C. DAS & CO.PVT. LTD % % - VERSUS -. I.T.O WARD 9(1) KOLKATA ( ' / APPELLANT ) ( )*' / RESPONDENT ) ' / FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT /SHRI A.P. ROY JCIT/LD.SR.DR )*' / FOR THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: / SHRI S. P. CHOWDHURY ADVOCATE LD.AR / 0 /DATE OF HEARING: 29-04-2014 / 0 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29-04--2014 / ORDER 1 SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 710/KOL/2012 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) VI II KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.105/CIT(A)- VIII/KOL/10-11 DATED 14.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE C.O NO. 59/KOL/2012 IS A CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.710/KOL/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 2. SHRI A.P. ROY LEARNED JCIT/SR.DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI S.P. CHOWDHURY ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE REVENUE APPEAL IN ITA NO.710/KOL/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD.CIT(A)-VIII ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF SUNDRY CRE DITOR OF RS.5 00 000 WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE ADDITION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A)-VIII ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14 03 8 40/- MADE ON THE ESTIMATION BASIS FOR FAILURE OF UTILIZATION OF PURC HASE. ITA NO. 710 KOL 12 & CO. 59 KOL 12 M/S. U.C DAS & CO. (P) LTD . 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A)-VIII ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 54 18 1 ON ACCOUNT OF VAT AND W.B CESS RS.27 896/- AS DEBITED IN THE P/L A/C. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A)-VIII ERRED IN LAW IN DECIDING THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO AO AS PER PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF T HE I.T RULE 1962. 4. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUES APPEAL I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED JCIT/SRDR THAT THIS ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO REPRESENTING SUNDRY CREDITOR. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS.5 43 582/- SUNDRY CREDITOR I N RESPECT OF M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD AS PER ITS BOOKS. HOWEVER ON VERIFICATION U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD HAD INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A DEBTOR ONLY FOR RS.1 404/-. WHE N THE ISSUE WAS PUT BEFORE THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE FILED AN EXPLANATION SUBMITTING THAT THE D IRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHRI ARGHYA DEEP ROY HAD PAID RS. 5 LAKHS BUT THE SAME WAS EN TERED IN THE BOOKS IN THE NEXT PREVIOUS YEAR. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF SHRI ARGHYA DEEP ROY IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI ARGHYA DEEP ROY THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED ON 18-02-08 AND THE AMOUNT WAS DEBITED ON THE SAME DAY. CONSEQUENTLY THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM UN DISCLOSED SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT MONEY UTILIZED IN THE INVESTMENT BY SHRI ARGHYA DEEP ROY WAS FLOWN FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. HE HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. IN REPLY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS V EHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKH WHICH IS BEING DIS CUSSED WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI ARGHYA DEEP ROY. THE TRANSACTION WHICH HAS BEEN D OUBTED HAPPENED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI ARGHYA DEEP ROY THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS HAS BEEN USED FOR PAYING THE CREDITOR M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD IS NOT DISPUTED. THE SUNDRY CREDITOR BEING M/S. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD STANDS PROVED. IT HAS GOT REPLACED BY SHRI AR GHYA DEEP ROY WHO IS DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE TRANSACTION IS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI A RGHYA DEEP ROY. IF AT ALL IT IS DOUBTED THE ADDITION WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ARGHYA DEEP ROY AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED ITA NO. 710 KOL 12 & CO. 59 KOL 12 M/S. U.C DAS & CO. (P) LTD . 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.2 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LEARNED JCIT/SR..DR THAT THIS ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OPENING STOCK AND TH E CLOSING STOCK MADE ON ESTIMATION BASIS FOR FAILURE TO PROVE UTILIZATION OF PURCHASES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CONSUMPTION OF MATERIALS IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE UTILIZATION OF THE MATERIALS THE AO ADD ED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A ) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT THE DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. CONSEQUENTLY HE DELET ED THE ADDITION. HE HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 8. IN REPLY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VE HEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IN PAGE-2 THE AO HAS ADDED THE DIFFERENC E BETWEEN THE OPENING STOCK AND THE CLOSING STOCK ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT PREPARE ACCOUNTS AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD-AS-7. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD NOT FILED RETURN PROJECT WISE TO IDENTIFY THE PROJECT INCOME FOR WHICH THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN CONSUMED. CONSEQUENTLY THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. WHAT IS THE NA TURE OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT COMING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE AO. NEITHER THE AO IS MENTIONING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED ITS TURNOVER OR ITS INCOME. THE ASSESSE ES TURNOVER CLEARLY IS AN AMOUNT NEARLY RS.77 LAKHS PLUS. THE OPENING STOCK ADMITTEDLY IS OF RS .21.40 000. THE CLOSING STOCK ADMITTEDLY IS OF RS.7 36 160/-. THESE TWO FIGURES HAVE ALSO NOT BE EN TOUCHED NOR BEING TINKERED BY THE AO. ADMITTEDLY ANY ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE OPENING STOCK AND THE CLOSING STOCK WILL REFLECT IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. THIS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OPENING ST OCK AND THE CLOSING STOCK HAS ALREADY BEEN GOT REFLECTED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF CONSU MPTION OF MATERIALS. NOW TO MAKE FURTHER ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MA INTAINING PROJECT WISE ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE EFFECT BEING DOUBLE ADDITION WHICH IS NOT PERMISS IBLE. THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING TH E ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 710 KOL 12 & CO. 59 KOL 12 M/S. U.C DAS & CO. (P) LTD . 4 10. IN RESPECT TO GROUND NOS.3 & 4 IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE LEARNED JCIT/.DR THAT THIS ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VAT AND W.B CESS. HE HAS VE HEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO 11. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A P ERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN PAGES 9-1 0 PARA 5.5 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE OF VAT AND W.B CESS HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE AO TO VERIFY THE DETAILS OF THE GROSS PAYMENTS AND DEDUCTION THEREFROM AS MADE BY THE CO NTRACTEE DEPARTMENT AND TO ALLOW APPROPRIATE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS ONLY DIRECT ED THE AO TO VERIFY AND ALLOW THE SAME IF THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF. CONSEQUENTLY WE FI ND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). CONS EQUENTLY GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 ARE DISMISSED. 13. THE ABOVE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.710/KOL/20 12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT 2008-09 STANDS DISMISSED. 14. IN RESPECT OF CROSS OBJECTION [ CO. NO.59/KOL/2 012 IN ITA NO.710/KOL/12 A.Y 2008-09 ] FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NO SERIOUS ARGUMENTS HAVE B EEN PLACED BEFORE US CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED.. 15. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 710/KOL2012 AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN C.O NO.59/KOL/12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09 BOTH ARE DISMISSED AS STATED ABOVE. 4 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT 29/0 4/2014 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) ( 1 ) (GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( (( ( 0 0 0 0 ) )) ) DATE 29/04/2014 ITA NO. 710 KOL 12 & CO. 59 KOL 12 M/S. U.C DAS & CO. (P) LTD . 5 ** PRADIP SPS / )7 87 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. . ' / THE APPELLANT : I.T.O WARD 9(1) P-7 CHOWRINGH EE SQ AAYKAR BHAWAN 5 TH ROOM - 14 KOL - 9. 2 )*' / THE RESPONDENT- M/S.U.C DAS & CO.PVT. LTD 59D BECHU CHATTERJEE ST. KOL-9. 3. 4. . / THE CIT ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5 . ) / DR KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . *7 )/ TRUE COPY / BY ORDER /ASSTT REGISTRAR