Case Law Details
Jai Balaji Industries Limited vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
The assessee has pointed out that it has made advance payment of Rs.9,39,708/- to Tata Metaliks DI Pipes Limited for purchase of scrap materials. This claim of the assessee has been rejected by the Revenue Authorities on the ground that this exact amount is not discernable from the statement of 26AS. The assessee has explained its position that in the statement of 26AS, the amount for which a bill was prepared by the concerned authority would reflect and sometime it is not necessary that advance given by the assessee should match ultimately with the purchases made by it. The advance could be further adjusted for other purchases. This simple thing has not been appreciated by the revenue authorities. The ld. Assessing Officer keeps on making the reference of Bank account, partial payments, etc. If he has any doubt, he should ask Tata Metaliks DI Pipes Limited. In that exercise, lot of unnecessary litigation as well as wastage of resources could be avoided. Similar is the situation with regard to other small issues by making reference of irrelevant things the disallowance has been made. The simple way for the ld. Assessing Officer was to cross verify from the concerned party, without adopting that course, he keeps on drawing inference of defects in the details of assessee by way of a deductive reasoning method. On due consideration of the details, we are of the view that the disallowance is not sustainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata dated 25.11.2021 passed for the assessment year 2013-14. Though the assessee has taken four grounds of appeal, but basically its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,45,372/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer to the taxable income of the assessee.
2. The assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Its case was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that there is some mismatch between the receipts shown by the assessee, vis-a-vis as per 26AS i.e. TDS details. He made the following additions:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
