Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Ito, Ward - 10(2), Kolkata , Kolkata vs Shri Ramautar Gupta, Kolkata on 3 December, 2018
ITA No. 1640/KOL/2017
A.Y. 2009-2010
Shri Ramautar Gupta
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA 'A' BENCH, KOLKATA
Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ)
and Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member
I.T .A. No. 1640/KOL/2017
Assessment Year: 2009-2010
Income Tax Officer,..............................................................Appellant
Ward-10(2 ), Kolkata,
Aayakar Bhawan,
P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3 r d Floor
Kolkata-700 069
-Vs.-
Shri Ram autar Gupta,........................................................Respondent
4, Mysore Road, Ras h Behari Avenue,
Kolkata-700 026
[PAN: ADXPG 9713 A ]
Appearances by:
Shri Christopher Jerome Singh, JCIT, Sr. D.R. , for the Appellant
Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, FCA., for the Respo ndent
Date of concluding th e hearing : December 03, 2018
Date of pronouncing the order : December 03, 2018
O R D E R
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):-
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata dated 24.04.2017 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition of Rs.3,27,37,158/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged undisclosed sales.
2. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 24.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.9,91,130/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the relevant details of 1 ITA No. 1640/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2009-2010 Shri Ramautar Gupta sales furnished by the assessee that the actual sales of the assessee made during the year under consideration were to the tune of Rs.33,89,11,507/- as against the total sales of Rs.30,61,74,349/ - disclosed by the assessee in the Profit & Loss Account. Since the assesee could not offer any satisfactory explanation in respect of this difference of Rs.3,27,37,158/- in the sales, the Assessing Officer treated the same as undisclosed sales of the assessee and made an addition of Rs.3,27,37,158/- to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.12.2011.
3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sales for the following reasons given in his impugned order:-
"I h ave carefully co nsidered the fact s of the case and the submissio ns of the assessee. Perusal of t he Kolkata branch statement shows th at from Trading Depot, local sales of Rs.39 ,55,513/- has been made. Besides inter-st ate s ales of Rs.71 ,27,387/- h as al so been made. Tot al of these figures is Rs.1 ,10,82,900/-. This A.O. has considered as suppressed sales. But in realit y this is duly reflect ed in t he sales figure of Kolkata Branch. Similarly, expo rt sales of Rs.1,10,42 ,265/- h as been made from 'trading depot' Kolkata. T his is duly reflected in the stat ement of sales made fro m Kolkata branch. Assessee has also submitted document s fro m the C ustoms Officers of Nepal regarding expo rts made to Nepal .
In the remand repo rt A.O. has mentioned that as per Annexure 'A' - sales fro m Kolkat a h as been mentione d at Rs.5 ,23,34,401/- whereas as per Annexure-B, this figure is Rs.5 ,74,27,057/-. I h ave perused both th e annexures. Total figure of turno ver as per each annexure is Rs.30 ,61,74,349/-. In Annexure A, there appears to be t ypographical erro r. Figure fo r sales from Kolkata sho uld be Rs.5,74,27,057/- only. Otherwise figure of total turnover woul d not tally. As per Sales Tax Returns also sales fro m Kolkata is Rs.5 ,74,27,057/- only. It appears that in Annexure-A, sales figure of Kolkata branch was wrongly mentio ned. But even with error, figure of total turnover was co rrect.2 ITA No. 1640/KOL/2017
A.Y. 2009-2010 Shri Ramautar Gupta In the assessment order and remand report (which is a repetition of issues discussed in assessment order), A.O. has discussed various issues and ultimat ely arrived at Sales suppression figure of Rs.3,27,37 ,158/-. In arriving at this discrepancy, 3 erroneous figures have been considered.
i) Total St ate (Depot ) wise sales h ave been taken at Rs.31 ,69,89,892/-, instead of the co rrect figure ofRs.30,61 ,74,349/-.
ii) Rs.1 ,10,82,900/- has been added on account of suppression of sales from Trading depot (Kolkata).
iii) Rs.1,10,42,265/- has been added on account of suppression of expo rt from trading depot Kolkata).
As discussed abo ve, all these th ree discrepancies are found to be non- existent . A.O. has erro neously considered these as discrepancies, without pro perly verifying the books, Sales T ax Ret urns, Export bills, Certificates of Customs deptt . of Nepal et c. There is no discrepancy in the turno ver of assessee. Hence, addit ion of Rs.3,27,37,158/ - is deleted".
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. D.R. has contended that the unexplained difference in sales was added by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed sales of the assessee, but the said addition was deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his impugned order by accepting the explanation of the assessee as regards the difference in sales. He has contended that although the remand report was called for by the ld. CIT(Appeals) from the Assessing Officer, the reconciliation statement prepared and furnished by the assessee for the first time before the ld. CIT(Appeals) explaining the difference in sales was not specifically provided to the Assessing Officer for his verification. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has invited our attention to the copy of the said reconciliation statement placed at page no. 1 of the paper book and submitted that the difference in sales was treated as explained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) after duly verifying the said reconciliation statement. He 3 ITA No. 1640/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2009-2010 Shri Ramautar Gupta has submitted that the assessee, however, is still open for verification of the said reconciliation statement and the matter may be sent back to the Assessing Officer for giving him an opportunity to verify the same. Keeping in view these submissions made by the ld. Representatives of both the sides, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the issue under consideration and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the reconciliation statement prepared and furnished by the assessee in order to explain the difference in sales from the relevant record. Needless to observe that the Assessing Officer shall provide proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee while deciding the issue.
5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on December 03, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.T. Varkey) (P.M. Jagtap)
Judicial Member Vice-President (KZ)
Kolkata, the 3 r d day of December, 2018
Copies to : (1) Income Tax Officer,.
Ward-10(2 ), Kolkata,
Aayakar Bhawan,
P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3 r d Floor
Kolkata-700 069
(2) Shri Ram autar Gupta,
4, Mysore Road, Ras h Behari Avenue,
Kolkata-700 026
(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata, (4) Commissio ner of Income Tax- , (5) The Depart ment al Represent ative (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. 4