Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Kalpesh P Shah, Thane vs Ito Wd 4(2), Thane on 13 October, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH "A", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.5902/M/2013
Assessment Year: 2007-08
Shri Kalpesh P. Shah, ITO Ward No.4(2),
201/202, Jalaram Jyot, Room No.29, B Wing,
Veer Savarkar Nagar, Vs. 6th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park,
Near Vishwakarma, Road No.16 Z,
Vasai Dist-Thane (W) Wagle Indl. Estate,
PAN: AKQPS1874E Thane - 400 604
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Present for:
Assessee by : Shri Awadesh Kumar, A.R.
Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017
ORDER
Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.08.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2007-08.
Ground No.1
2. The short facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has made the addition on account of Rs.11,75,353/- made on account of unexplained creditor. The AO during the course of remand proceedings found that sundry creditor to the extent of Rs.10,09,166/- verifiable on the basis of copies of bills and ledger account and also confirmations furnished. The 2 ITA No.5902/M/2013 Shri Kalpesh P. Shah remaining Rs.1,55,637/- on account of unexplained creditor was not verifiable before the Ld. CIT(A).
3. Before us, the Ld. A.R. has filed the additional evidence to show that this amount has already been paid by the assessee. Therefore, we restore this issue back to the file of AO to verify the same and decide the matter afresh in respect of Rs.1,55,637/- as per law.
Ground No.2
4. The second ground is in respect of addition of Rs.9,55,384/-. The amount of advance of Rs.9,55,384/- received by the assessee through cheque on different dates from a party namely Aaron Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. During the course of hearing, the AO found and verified the documentary evidences viz. confirmatory letters, proof of remittances and export made against the advances received from foreign buyers. However, assessee could not file confirmatory letter for advances received from the party Aaron Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.9,55,384/-. The amounts of advances were received by the assessee through cheques on different dates from the said parties i.e. in F.Y. 2005-06 of Rs.6,43,793/- and in F.Y. 2006-07 Rs.3,11,591/-. The assessee has received the advance for supply of pharmaceutical product to be exported by Aaron Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. but due to some reason the party could not confirm the order after giving the advance. The advances are still lying with assessee and the same were not written off in the 3 ITA No.5902/M/2013 Shri Kalpesh P. Shah books of the account of the assessee. Therefore, assessee contended that this is not the income in the hands of the assessee.
5. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same.
6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that assessee has received the advance of Rs.1,17,45,773/- in financial year 2006-07. In the remand proceedings, the AO has verified these debtors from Bank of Maharashtra and in the remand proceeding, the AO verified from the bank and he has submitted the report as under:
Out of Rs.1,17,45,773/- on account of advance from debtor all the debtors were confirmed except confirmation in which the addition of Rs.9,55,384/- was outstanding.
The assessee has received a letter from Bank of Maharashtra intimating that assessee has received Rs.7,26,83,940/- as foreign remittance against which assessee has made export of Rs.6,98,57,582/- as per bank realization certification issued by Bank of Maharashtra. Therefore, this fact requires verification at the end of AO because, assessee has already received the amount of Rs.6,98,57,582/-. Therefore, only addition can be made in respect of the amount which assessee has not exported but at the same time the assessee has also submitted before me that advance of Rs.6,43,793/- relates to F.Y. 2005-06 & F.Y. 2006-07 and addition of Rs.3,11,591/- can be made in this year but all these facts and figures require verification. Therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee 4 ITA No.5902/M/2013 Shri Kalpesh P. Shah and restore this issue back to the file of the AO to decide the matter afresh as per law.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G. Manjunatha) (D.T. Garasia)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated:13.10.2017.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy// [
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.