9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der which was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, we hold that the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is unsustainable, accordingly quash the order and allow the appeal of the assessee. - I. T. A. No. 183/Viz/2018 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2018 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOU-NTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri G. V. N. Hari, AR For The Respondent : Shri D. K. Sonowal, CIT DR ORDER PER D. S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT), Guntur dated 31. 01. 2018 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. In this case, the assessee filed the return of income declaring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT for the difference and explained that there was a mistake crept in the VAT returns due to clerical error. The explanation of the assessee was as under: The difference in VAT returns is due to clerical error and the actual purchases are as per purchase invoices recorded in the books of account which were audited u/s 44AB of I. T. Act. We have discussed and explained the difference of ₹ 6,21,467/- in VAT returns to the Commercial Tax Officer and the learned Income Tax Officer. Reconciliation Statement of purchases for February 2013 March 2013 Purchases in February as per books of account t: 87,71,54,456 Purchases as reported in VAT return (2/3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 4,32,401/- debited to the Profit Loss a/c while making the assessment u/s 143(3) and accordingly, held that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed the AO to redo the assessment on the lines indicated in the revisional order. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that there was a mistake in the VAT returns due to clerical error to the extent of ₹ 6,21,467/- which was explained to VAT authorities. After verification of the details the VAT authorities have accepted the mistake and did not allow the Input Tax Credit (I. T. C. ). The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessment was complet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. CIT misdirected himself and considered that the sum of ₹ 1,89,060/- as making charges which was not correct. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the actual difference was ₹ 6,21,461/- in purchases which was understated in the VAT Returns by clerical error because of which the assessee had to forgo the VAT credit. The Ld. AR taken our attention to VAT assessment order at page No. 52 to 55 of the paper book. In page No. 54 in VAT Returns under the head purchases for the Financial Year 2012-13, the purchases were admitted at ₹ 1015,40,89,153/- as per the books of accounts against the turnover declared to the VAT authorities at ₹ 1015,34,67,656/- resulting in difference of ₹ 6,21,497/- for which the VAT autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
