Case Law Details
Smt. Shila Dutta Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. PCIT had exercised his revision jurisdiction on the issue of claim of refund of Rs.22 lakhs on account of empty bottles. However, when the figure was reconciled by the assessee, the ld. PCIT proceeded to set aside the assessment order on the other issue relating to mismatch in the vehicle number used for transportation of liquor without confronting the assessee in this respect. The ld. Counsel inviting our attention to the aforesaid chart reproduced by the ld. PCIT submitted that the discrepancy has been found by the ld. PCIT in respect of three invoices only. The ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to the copy of invoices which has been placed at page no.1 to 77 of the paper-book. The ld. Counsel has submitted that a perusal of the invoices shows that only 3-4 trucks were used for transportation of liquor/bottles. That most of the times, the truck no.WB55-0096 has used for the transportation. The ld. Counsel inviting our attention to the above chart has submitted that in one of the invoice dated 09.10.2014, the truck number inadvertently, due to clerical error, has been mentioned as WB650096 instead of WB550096. He has further submitted that similarly in the invoice dated 05.06.2014, the truck number has been inadvertently mentioned as WB550099 instead of WB550096. He has submitted that there is just a mistake of one digit which is visibly a clerical mistake. The ld. Counsel has submitted in respect of invoice dated 17.11.2014, inadvertently, the registration number of the truck could not be mentioned. The ld. Counsel has submitted that except the aforesaid clerical mistake in three invoices, there is no material on the file to doubt the purchases or the transportation done by the assessee. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that, even otherwise, the assessee has duly explained and reconciled the difference on account of refund on empty bottles on the basis of which the ld. PCIT has initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. PCIT thereafter was supposed to confront the assessee in respect of mismatch of truck number but the ld. PCIT proceeded to set aside the assessment order on wrong assumption of facts.
The ld. DR could not rebut the above submissions of the ld. AR. All the purchases and refunds on account of empty bottles were duly reconciled.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also demonstrated that the Ld. PCIT wrongly proceeded to set aside the assessment order due to mismatch of truck number in two invoices, which was visibly a clerical mistake.
We, therefore, do not find justification on the part of the ld. PCIT to invoke his jurisdiction u/s 263 of Act in this case to set aside the assessment order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
