Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
M/S Supreme Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., Alwar vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 1 August, 2019
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH 'A' JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 402/JP/2019
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2005-06.
M/s. Supreme Cylinders Ltd., cuke The Asstt. Commissioner of
A-146K, Industrial Area, Vs. Income-tax,
Bhiwadi, Circle-2,
Alwar. Moti Dungari, Alwar.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AACCS 9200 M
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J.C. Kulheri (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 30/07/2019
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 01/08/2019
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-22, Alwar dated 02.01.2019 for A.Y 2005-06 wherein assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 154 of the Act by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in rejecting the application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act, by holding that the said application does not come under the purview of any mistake apparent from record.2
ITA No. 402/JP/2019
M/s. Supreme Cylinders Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Alwar
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case while computing the amount of addition on account of alleged cash book on freight charges incurred by the appellant, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing a relief of Rs. 4,47,421/- as against of Rs. 5,85,323/- as concluded by him in his own order.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the CIT(A) is contradictory from his own finding while deleting the addition."
2. At the outset, the ld. AR drawn our reference to the order of ld. CIT(A) in the original proceedings wherein, in relation to addition made by the AO on account of freight charges, the ld. CIT(A) has held as under:-
"7.5 I have gone through the material available on record and find that AO has not brought on record any other material against the assessee to prove that the cash was received back on the total freight charges. However, I find that the appellant has also failed to controvert the evidence of having received the cash back from the party (M/s Haryana Rajasthan Roadlines) as found from the papers impounded during the course of survey operation. Accordingly, I hold that it would be appropriate to restrict the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,37,902/- as was found recorded on the papers impounded in the course of survey operation. The appellant would therefore get a relief of Rs. 4,47,421/- on this account."
3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to Rs. 1,37,902/- which admittedly is covered under surrendered peak by the assessee itself and is not part of the extrapolated amount of Rs. 5,85,323/-. It was 3 ITA No. 402/JP/2019 M/s. Supreme Cylinders Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Alwar accordingly submitted that basis such factual mistake, the assessee moved an application u/s 154 which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has held that on the basis of evidence on record, the present application filed u/s 154 does not come under the purview of any mistake apparent from record.
4. It was further submitted that the matter in the original proceedings has reached the Tribunal wherein by order dated 29.05.2018 in ITA No. 525/JP/2014 and CO No. 44/JP/2016, the Tribunal has set-aside the matter and the relevant findings are contained at para Nos. 11-13 which reads as under:-
"11. The AO on the analyses of loose papers found that the assessee has received unaccounted cash @ 22.25% which is the difference between the billed amount and actual freight mutually determined with the transporters. By applying this rate to the total expenses on freight declared by the assessee, the AO has made an addition of Rs. 5,85,323/- over and above an amount of Rs. 1,37,902/- declared by the assessee and surrendered during the survey. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the said addition on the ground that the AO has made the addition without bringing any material on record to prove that the assessee has received cash back on the total freight charges.
12. Before us, the ld. D/R has submitted that though the loose papers contains the unaccounted cash receipt found at Rs. 1,37,902/- on account of freight charges, however, once this undeclared income was found during the survey, the AO has applied the same ratio on the entire freight charges paid by the assessee.4
ITA No. 402/JP/2019
M/s. Supreme Cylinders Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Alwar 12.1. On the other hand, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has not brought on record any material or evidence to prove that the assessee had in fact received an amount @ 22.25% of the freight expenses recorded in the books of account. The only evidence is the loose papers found during the course of survey which contains only Rs. 1,37,902/- and, therefore, over and above the said amount the AO cannot make an addition. She has supported the order of the ld. CIT (A).
13. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The AO has noted from Annexure-A-22 of the loose papers that the bills of Haryana Rajasthan Roadlines were impounded during survey. The details of the ledger account and the bill amount as per the loose paper is given by the AO as under :-
Month Expenses claimed Bill amount as per Difference by company loose paper April, 04 78338 55000 23338 May, 04 243901 165900 7800 June, 04 127463 96800 30663 July, 04 48104 19400 28704 Aug, 04 122097 74700 47397 Total 619903 411800 137902 Accordingly the AO computed the difference between the billed amount and actual freight amount mutually determined between the parties @ 22.25%. This rate of difference was applied by the AO on the total freight charges of Rs. 32,50,451/- and arrived at total difference amount of Rs. 7,23,225/-. Since an amount of Rs. 1,37,902/- is found from the loose papers being difference between the agreed rate and the expenses claimed in the books 5 ITA No. 402/JP/2019 M/s. Supreme Cylinders Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Alwar was already surrendered by the assessee, therefore, the AO has made the addition of Rs. 5,85,323/-. The assessee has objected to the extrapolating of this difference to the entire freight charges which is accepted by the ld. CIT (A) and deleted the said addition.
13.1. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee has admitted the over-inflated claim of freight charges as found in the loose papers for the months of April to August in respect of the payment made to one transporter, namely, Haryana Rajasthan Roadlines, the said rate of inflated expenses on account of freight charges can be applied in respect of the freight charges claimed by the assessee paid to Haryana Rajasthan Roadlines. Therefore, to the extent of freight paid to the said transporter, the inflated rate as applied by the assessee is justified but not in respect of the other transporter when there is no material or other record to show such an arrangement between the assessee and other transporter. Accordingly, we set aside this issue to the record of the AO to verify the other freight charges and only to the extent of freight charges to Haryana Rajasthan Roadlines this difference rate can be applied."
5. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record which calls for any interference by the ld CIT(A). He accordingly supported the order of the ld CIT(A).
6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench has already examined the matter and 6 ITA No. 402/JP/2019 M/s. Supreme Cylinders Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Alwar which has been set aside to the record of the AO. Therefore, the present mistake so pointed out by the assessee is also remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall verify the same and where the same is found to be correct, allow the necessary relief to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 01/08/2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 01/08/2019.
Ganesh Kr.
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s. Supreme Cylinders Ltd., Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Circle-2, Moti Dungari, Alwar
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 402/JP/2019} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar