Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Shri Deepak Chourasia, Prop. M/S. ... vs The Acit, 2(1), Bhopal on 7 February, 2020
[IT(SS)A No.104 of 2018]
[Shri Deepak Chourasia, Vidisha]
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इ दौर यायपीठ, इ दौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT(SS)A No.104/Ind/2018
Assessment Year: 2009-10
Shri Deepak Chourasia ACIT-2(1)
Prop. M/s. Chourasia बनाम/ Bhopal
Trading Co.
Vs.
Station Road, Ganjbasoda
District Vidisha, M.P.
(Appellant) (Revenue )
P.A. No.AESPC5107Q
Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande, A.R.
Respondent by Shri Lal Chand, D.R.
Date of Hearing: 05.02.2020
Date of Pronouncement: 07.02.2020
आदे श / O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, J.M:
This appeal, by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhopal dated 17.5.2018 pertaining to the [IT(SS)A No.104 of 2018] [Shri Deepak Chourasia, Vidisha] assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the additions made towards unaccounted stock of Rs.10,87,979/-.
2. The assessee craves leave to add, alter amend or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before the time of hearing.
2. The only effective ground is against confirming the additions made towards unaccounted stock of Rs.10,87,979/-. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a search action was carried out on the family of the assessee on 22.1.2009, during the course of which, the books of accounts and other documents were seized. The assessment was completed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), thereby various additions were made. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {in short 'CIT(A)}, deleted the additions. The order of the Ld. 2 [IT(SS)A No.104 of 2018] [Shri Deepak Chourasia, Vidisha] CIT(A) was challenged by the revenue before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its order dated 16.7.2013 in IT(SS)A No.394 & 395/Ind/2012 confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on various deletions made and however, set aside the issue of addition in respect of closing stock for reconsideration. It was also directed that closing stock to be taken by considering the figures of opening stock on incorporating the purchase and sale made up to the date of search. In compliance thereto, the Assessing Officer (in short 'A.O.') completed the assessment in the set aside proceedings vide order dated 31.3.2015. Thereby, the A.O. drew the trading account. The opening stock figure was taken as directed by the Tribunal, sales and purchases were incorporated and G.P. (gross loss of Rs.2,47,072/-) was taken and accordingly figure of closing stock of Rs.65,49,852/- was arrived at. As the closing stock found during the search was Rs.85,80,563/-, the difference of 3 [IT(SS)A No.104 of 2018] [Shri Deepak Chourasia, Vidisha] Rs.20,30,711/- was treated as suppression of stock and addition was made to the returned income. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, the Ld. CIT re-casted the trading account and treated difference of Rs.10,87,979/- as unexplained investment. Against this, the assessee is in present appeal.
3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the part addition. He reiterated the submissions as made before the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that the gross profit of the year under consideration is higher than the earlier year. He further submitted that had the Ld. CIT(A) included the gross profit of current year, there would not have been any difference in stock.
4
[IT(SS)A No.104 of 2018] [Shri Deepak Chourasia, Vidisha]
4. Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and submitted that in the year under consideration, there were certain discrepancies. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly not included the gross profit rate of the year under appeal.
5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld. CIT(A) in paras 11 & 12 of the order has decided this issue as under: 5
[IT(SS)A No.104 of 2018] [Shri Deepak Chourasia, Vidisha] 6 [IT(SS)A No.104 of 2018] [Shri Deepak Chourasia, Vidisha]
6. The grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) should have included the gross profit of the year under appeal for working out the average. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has taken average of two years i.e. for the financial years 2005-06 & 2006-07. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is a higher gross profit declared in the year under consideration. Exclusion of the year under appeal has resulted into a lower gross profit. The Ld. CIT(A) while making estimation on the average basis ought to have included the year under consideration. Therefore, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to include gross profit of the financial years 2008-09, 2007-
08, 2006-07 & 2005-06 for working out the average gross profit and re-compute the disallowance accordingly. This ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms indicated above.
7
[IT(SS)A No.104 of 2018] [Shri Deepak Chourasia, Vidisha]
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 is allowed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 07 .02.2020.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore; दनांक Dated : 07/02/2020 VG/SPS
Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file.
By order Assistant Registrar, Indore 8