Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Parco Paints Private Ltd., New ... vs Ito, New Delhi on 30 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'F' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 2164/Del/2014
AY: 2006-07
Parco Paints Private Ltd., vs Income Tax Oficer,
61/1, Ramjas Road, Ward 14(1),
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
New Delhi-110005
Appellant by: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CA
Respondent by: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 05.07.2017
Date of pronouncement 30.08.2017
ORDER
PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi dated 23.01.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07.
2. The assessee has taken the sole ground which reads as under:-
"2. The addition of Rs. 22,73,522/- on account of so called difference in purchase needs to be deleted as there has been no difference."
3. The facts are that the return was filed at a total income of Rs. 2,19,270/- whereas the assessment was completed at an I.T.A. No. 2164/Del/2014 Assessment Year 2006-07 income of Rs. 24,92,792/- after making addition on account of purchases made from allegedly unaccounted sources amounting to Rs. 22,73,522/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and on appeal before the ITAT, the ITAT vide order dated 11.5.2010 in I.T.A. No. 1002/Del/2010 set aside the assessment order to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and directed the Assessing Officer to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also directed the assessee to furnish detailed explanation regarding the difference in purchase as pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 254/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and again added back an amount of Rs. 22,73,522/- while noting that the assessee had failed to appear on 15.11.2011 i.e. the date for which the case was fixed for hearing. The ld. CIT(A) again confirmed the disallowance and now, the assessee has approached the ITAT for the second time. 2 I.T.A. No. 2164/Del/2014 Assessment Year 2006-07 3.1 Ld. AR submitted that during the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee to furnish statement of account of the following parties:-
i) Neeru Marketing (P) Limited
ii) J.M. Chemical Co.
iii) Hitech Plast Ltd.
iv) Brijraj Holdings
v) Hindustan Rasayan (P) Ltd.
It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act for calling for the statement of accounts of the assessee in their books which the parties had filed and, thereafter, the Assessing Officer compared the purchases shown in the statement filed by the assessee with the statement of account filed by the parties. Thereafter, our attention was drawn to page 5 of the facts of the case wherein a chart has been tabulated. The chart is being reproduced as under:- 3
I.T.A. No. 2164/Del/2014 Assessment Year 2006-07 S. No. Name of the Parties Amount of Amount of sale Difference purchase as per made by the the assessee assessee as per from the party reply.
1. Neeru Marketing (P) 2598960 2642120 43160 Limited
2. J.M Chemical Co. 2091175 2990461 899286
3. Hitech Plast Ltd. 2172726 3188050 1015324
4. Brijraj Holdings 606040 880813 274773
5. Hindustan Rasayan (P) 1832751 1873730 40979 Ltd.
2273522 .
3.2 Ld. AR submitted that there was an alleged difference of Rs. 22,73,522/- between the value of purchase shown by the assessee and as per the confirmation filed. Ld. AR submitted that the difference is on account of totalling error and the Assessing Officer had made an error in making the addition. It was submitted that even during the first appellate proceedings, an affidavit from the Chartered Accountant was filed that there was no difference between the purchases as shown by the assessee and the sales as shown by the selling parties and the 4 I.T.A. No. 2164/Del/2014 Assessment Year 2006-07 same was only a totalling mistake. It was submitted that the maximum amount of difference was just Rs. 14,618/- which was offered to tax by the assessee in its submission on the remand report. Ld. AR submitted that the issue may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for checking the calculation and verifying the fact of the totalling mistake.
4. Learned Departmental Representative opposed the submission of the ld. AR and submitted that it was already the second round before the ITAT and the Assessing Officer during the assessment u/s 254/143(3) had noted that the assessee had failed to appear on the appointed date and, therefore, the assessee should not be allowed to take advantage of its own fault.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. A perusal of the record does show that prima facie there is a totalling mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer and it will be in the interest of justice if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the fact of the totalling mistake as has been 5 I.T.A. No. 2164/Del/2014 Assessment Year 2006-07 claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall afford due opportunity to the assessee before passing a final order.
6. In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th August, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.D. AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA)
PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
DT. 30th AUGUST 2017
'GS'
Copy forwarded to:-
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR
By Order
Asstt. Registrar
6