Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Nova Hvac Systems (India) P Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 5(2)(1), Mumbai on 25 June, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA no.686/Mum/2017
(Assessment Year :2012-13)
Nova HAVC Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Unit no.11 & 12, 339, Udyog Bhavan
................ Appellant
B.K. Marg, Mahim (W), Mumbai 400 015
PAN - AACCN1228J
v/s
Income Tax Officer
................ Respondent
Ward-5(2)(1), Mumbai
Assessee by : Shri Pratik Poddar a/s Shri Paras Savla
Revenue by : Ms. N. Hemalatha
Date of Hearing - 22.05.2018 Date of Order - 25.05.2018
ORDER
PERSAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is against order dated 17th October 2016, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-21, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. Though the assessee has raised three effective grounds, however, the issue in dispute relates to addition of an amount of ` 51,10,485.
2
Nova HAVC Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.
3. Brief facts are, the assessee a company is stated to be engaged in the business of dealing and after sale service of air conditioners. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 28th September 2012, declaring loss of ` 8,34,675. During the assessment proceedings, on the basis of system generated information, the Assessing Officer found that contract receipts of ` 51,10,485, from five parties received during the relevant previous year have not been offered to income, though, the assessee has claimed TDS on such amount. Alleging that the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence for reconciling the difference the Assessing Officer added back the amount of ` 51,10,485 being the difference in contract receipts to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, of such addition, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.
4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) agreeing with the Assessing Officer upheld the addition.
5. The learned Authorised Representative submitted before us that due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee documentary evidences could not be produced before the Departmental Authorities to reconcile the difference. He submitted, now the assessee is in 3 Nova HAVC Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.
possession of relevant documentary evidences to reconcile the difference in contract receipts. He submitted, given an opportunity assessee will produced the necessary evidences before the Assessing Officer to establish its claim.
6. The learned Departmental Representative has no objection if an opportunity is given to the assessee to reconcile the difference.
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, it is seen from record that the addition on account of difference in contract receipt was basically made as the assessee did not furnish documentary evidences to reconcile the difference. It is evident, before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has pleaded that the difference in contract receipt has either been shown in the previous years or in subsequent years. However, the assessee could not establish its claim through proper evidence. Considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative that the assessee is now in a position to reconcile the difference through supporting evidence, we are inclined to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes.
4
Nova HAVC Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.
8. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2018 Sd/- Sd/-
MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL SAKTIJIT DEY
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, DATED: 25.05.2018
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Revenue;
(3) The CIT(A);
(4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned;
(5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai;
(6) Guard file.
True Copy
By Order
Pradeep J. Chowdhury
Sr. Private Secretary
(Sr. Private Secretary)
ITAT, Mumbai