Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Acit Palgahr Circle, Palgahr, Palghar vs Nimesh Madanlal Mehta (Huf), Palghar on 24 May, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई " जे" खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -"J"Bench Mumbai सव ी राजे ,ले लेखा सद य एवं, राम लाल नेगी, ी याियक सद य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5012/Mum/2016, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT-Palghar Circle-Palghar Nimesh Madanlal Mehta (HUF) Aayakar Bhavan, Income tax Office, Prop.; M/s. Sonim Traders, Patelpada BIDCO Road,Palghar Vs. At. & P.O. Vangaon, Tal. Dahanu Dist Palghar-401 404. Dist.- Palghar-401 103.
PAN:AACHM 5351 E
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
Revenue by: Ms. Arju Garodia-DR
Assessee by: Shri Viraj M. Shah
सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing: 24.05.2017
घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 24.05.2017 आयकर आय कर अिधिनयम,1961 अिधिनयम क धारा 254(1)के के अ तग त आदे श Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद य राजे के अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Challenging the order,dated 23/05/2016,of the CIT(A)-3, Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.Assessee-HUF,a transport contractor,filed its return of income on 30/07/2013,declaring total income of Rs.75.96 lakhs.The AO completed the assess
-ment,u/s.143(3) of the Act,on 14/01/2016,determining its income at Rs.1.10crores.
2.Effective Ground of appeal is about deleting the addition of Rs.34.69 lakhs made on account of transport and other expenses.During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.1.93 lakhs from five transport companies, that the tax had been deducted on the same. He observed that the perusal of Form 3CD of M/s.Swift Cleford agency Pvt.Ltd. (Swift) that amount of 34.69 lakhs was paid to one Sonim Traders having PAN :AACHM 5351 E,that the PAN belonged to the assessee. He issued a show cause notice directing it to explain as to why the books of account should not be rejected and as to why the amount in question 34.69 lakhs should not be assessed as its income. In its letter,dated 2/2/2016,the assessee stated that Sonim Traders was a proprietary concern of the Karta of the HUF , that it had received Rs.34.69 lakhs from Swift, that tax was deducted as source as per the rules.The assessee enclosed Form No.16A in support of its claim.However,the AO stated that explanation filed by the assessee is not acceptable because it had taken contrary stand.He treated the amount in question as income of the assessee for the year under consideration.
5012/M/16(13-14)-Nimesh
3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA)and made elaborate submissions.It was also argued that the AO had failed to confirm the details of payment made by Swift, that she had not verified the receipts shown by it at Rs.27.57 lakhs in the P&L account, that the AO had not verified the details of TDS appearing in the Government IT software as well as in 26-AS, that she had made double addition of the same receipts,that it had not received payments from five companies, that it had received Rs.1.93 lakhs against commission income, that tax of Rs. 19,314/- was deducted against the commission income,that it had shown the commission income in Form 26-AS.A reconciliation statement was also submitted before the FAA. After considering the same the FAA observed that the amount of Rs.34,69,155/- is reflected in clause -18 of Form 3-CD, that Swift had confirmed that a sum of Rs.27.57 lakhs was paid to the assessee after deducting tax of Rs.55,139/- towards transportation charges, that as per the ledger account of assessee, as on 31.3.2013, included credit balance of Rs.5.21 lakhs, that the reconciliation statement was supported by ledger account of both the parties, that assessee had filed all the details of deduction of tax and transport receipts. Considering the fact,that assessee had reconciled the taxes deducted at source with the receipts shown in the books of account,the FAA deleted the addition.
4.During the course of hearing before us the Departmental Representative (DR) stated that matter could be decided on merits. The Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the AO had not verified the facts before making the addition.We find that the FAA has given a categorical finding of fact,after verifying the tax deducted at source and the receipts shown by the assessee,that there was no discrepancy in the income shown by the assessee and that the addition made by AO were not based on facts.As nothing has been brought on record to prove that order of the FAA suffers from any legal or factual infirmity, so, upholding his order we decide the effective Ground of appeal against the AO.
As a result, appeal filed by the AO stands dismissed. फलतः िनधा रती अिधकारी ारा दािखल क गई अपील मंजूर क जाती है.
ना Order pronounced in the open court on 24th May, 2017.
आदेश क घोषणा खुले %यायालय म' (दनांक 24 मई , 2017 को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(राम लाल नेगी / Ram Lal Negi) (राजे / Rajendra)
याियक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद
य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबईMumbai; (दनांक/Dated : 24.05 .2017.
Jv.Sr.PS.
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /अपीलाथ* 2. Respondent /+,यथ* 2 5012/M/16(13-14)-Nimesh
3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब/ अपीलीय आयकर आयु0, 4.The concerned CIT /संब/ आयकर आयु0
5.DR "A " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय +ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ.%याया.मुंबई
6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स,यािपत +ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुब ं ई /ITAT, Mumbai.
3