Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Priyadarshini Sahakari Soot Girni ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 13 June, 2018
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण "बी" यायपीठ पण
ु े म ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE
ी डी. क णाकरा राव,लेखा सद य, एवं ी !वकास अव थी, या#यक सद य के सम$
BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1619 & 1620/PUN/2016
#नधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year : 2012-13
Priyadarshini Sahkari SootGirni Ltd.
At Post Tande, Tal. Shirpur,
Dist-Dhule.
Pin-425 405.
PAN : AAAAP0701B
.......अपीलाथ / Appellant
बनाम / V/s.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Dhule Circle, Dhule.
......
यथ / Respondent
Assessee by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni
Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Jha
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2018
घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018
आदे श / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
These appeals by assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal)-1, Nashik.
In ITA No.1619/PUN/2016, the assessee has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Nashik dated 23.05.2016 in confirming the addition of Rs.25,04,89,638/-. 2
ITA Nos. 1619 & 1620/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 In ITA No.1620/PUN/2016, the assessee has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Nashik dated 29.06.2016 passed u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in dismissing the application of assessee for rectification.
2. Since, the issues involved in both these appeals are similar and are arising from same set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are disposed of vide this common order.
3. Shri M.K. Kulkarni appearing on behalf of assessee submitted that the assessee is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of manufacturing of Cotton yarn, knitting fabric, process fabric, trading of goods and allied activities. The assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30.09.2012 declaring total loss at Rs.92,20,37,073/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Before passing of the assessment order, the assessee filed revised return of income on 18.03.2015. The assessee credited Rs.25.04 Crores in the P & L account from general reserve on the suggestion of internal auditors. However, The Assessing Officer without taking into consideration the revised return filed by assessee passed assessment order on 20.03.2015 making various additions aggregating to Rs.60,97,531/-.
4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) took cognizance of the amount credited to P & L account as was declared in the revised return filed on 18.03.2015 and made addition of Rs.25,04,89,638/-. The assessee in appeal has assailed the addition made 3 ITA Nos. 1619 & 1620/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) without considering the fact that the amount was credited to P & L account from General Reserve and the said amount was not income of the assessee. The ld. AR prayed for reversing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and deleting the addition Rs.25.04 Crores.
5. On the other hand, Shri Mukesh Jha representing the Department vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in making the addition.
6. We have heard the submissions made by representative of rival sides and have perused the orders of Authorities below. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance of the alleged revised return filed by assessee on 18.03.2015. The Assessing Officer observed that resolution was passed on 18.07.2012 i.e. during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to assessment year 2013-14, therefore, the said amount is not to be considered in the assessment year 2012-13. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) took cognizance of the revised return and made addition of Rs. 25,04,89,638/- by observing as under:
"4.5 The appellant has failed to furnish any convincing explanation with regard to the break up or composition of Rs.25,04,89,638/- that it has shown as income in its profit and loss account. It is not even clarified that whether reserve fund is routed through P & L account or not. Since the appellant has shown Rs.25,04,89,638/- as income and passed the necessary entries in its books of account, I am of the opinion that AO has correctly added Rs.25,04,89,638/- to the income of the appellant. The appellant's reliance of various case laws is misplaced. The appellant has committed a serious manipulation in its accounts and cheated thousands of depositors by window dressing its profit and loss account. The addition of Rs.25,04,89,638/- is, therefore, confirmed. In view of decision on merits, the ground of appeal raised is dismissed."4
ITA Nos. 1619 & 1620/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 The reasoning given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to make the addition of amount credited to P & L account from Reserves is not sustainable. Neither the Revenue nor the assessee has made effort to bring out the fact, the nature of Reserves from which the amount has been credited to P & L account. It is not emanating from records whether the amount credited to Reserves account was routed through P & L account at relevant point of time. The ld. AR also failed to explain as to how this amount has been credited to P & L account from Reserves in the financial year 2011-12 relevant to assessment year 2012-13 when the resolution has been passed on 18.07.2012 i.e. in the period relevant to assessment year 2013-14. The facts necessary for proper adjudication of the issue raised in appeal are not emanating from the records. Under such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for re- adjudication after detailed examination of the relevant documents. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the issue afresh, in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised in appeal (ITA No.1619/PUN/2016) by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1619/PUN/2016 is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No. 1620/PUN/2016
A.Y. 2012-13
8. In this appeal, the assessee has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting assessee's application for rectification. The ld. AR has not been able to point any mistake apparent from record that could be rectified in proceedings u/s.154 of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in dismissing 5 ITA Nos. 1619 & 1620/PUN/2016 A.Y.2012-13 the assessee's application for rectification. Hence, the grounds raised by assessee in appeal are dismissed being devoid of any merit.
9. To sum up, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.1619/PUN/2016 is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of assessee in ITA No. 1620/PUN/2016 is dismissed.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 13th day of June, 2018 Sd/- Sd/-
(डी. क णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (!वकास अव थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पण ु े / Pune; !दनांक / Dated : 13th June, 2018 SB आदे श क* +#त-ल!प अ.े!षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant.
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. The CIT(Appeal)-1, Nashik.
4. The Pr. CIT-1, Nashik.
5. %वभागीय त न(ध, आयकर अपील य अ(धकरण, "बी" ब,च, पण ु े / DR, ITAT, "B" Bench, Pune.
6. गाड/ फ़ाइल / Guard File.
// True Copy // आदे शानुसार / BY ORDER, नजी स(चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील य अ(धकरण, पण ु े / ITAT, Pune.