9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed for statistical purposes Bogus purchases - tentative and provision figures shown by the assessee as per the Sales Tax Department in absence of any verification or audit by the Sales Tax Department - HELD THAT:- When the figures of purchase shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account are matching with the figures certified by the Sales Tax Department and VAT return filed by the assessee, then no addition can be made on the basis of earlier tentative figure shown by the assessee as per Sales Tax Department. Accordingly, ground No.2 of assessee is allowed - ITA No.24/CTK/2020 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2020 - Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Binod Agarwal, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri J.K.Lenka, DR ORDER This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Sambalpur, dated 17.10.2019 for the assessment year 2010-2011 on the following grounds of appeal :- 1. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wholly unjustified to confirm addition of ₹ 2,25,254/- being the provident fund amount paid via Tata Refractories Ltd. as per arrangement betwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has no serious objection if the issue is restored to the file of AO for verification of the fact that as to whether the TRL has deducted provident fund amount from the amount of bills raised by the assessee in the capacity of the contractor. 5. Placing rejoinder to the above, ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that from the copies of the monthwise statement of provident fund submitted to TRL are placed at pages 6 to 17 of the paper book, which clearly reveals that the assessee, as agreed between the assessee-contractor and TRL, submitted details of total amount of employees provident fund with a request to deduct and deposit the same to the provident fund office and this evidence has not been properly considered and appreciated by the authorities below which resulted into baseless addition. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that if it is found just and proper the assessee is ready to get the amount of provident fund verifying from the AO to show that payment of provident fund was made by TRL in the capacity of principal employer and the issue can be sent to the file of AO for verification of limited fact as stated by the ld. DR as to whether the TRL has deducte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t total purchase as per revised return was ₹ 1,40,22,080/- and this figure was verified by the Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax Department, Government of Odisha. Ld. AR further submitted that the same figure has been shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account for the period ended on 31.03.2010, therefore, the same cannot be doubted in any manner. It was also submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee ahs sundry creditors as well as debtors along with profit and loss account which also cannot be doubted. Further drawing our attention towards para 5.3.3 of the first appellate order, the ld. counsel submitted that the certificate issued by the DCIT, Sales Tax Department dated 29.05.2015 was submitted before the CIT(A) but he did not consider the same for want of application under Rule 46A of I.T.Rules, 1962 without allowing opportunity to the assessee to file such application. Ld.AR vehemently pointed out that the CIT(A) in para 5.3.3 has wrongly mentioned that the certificate simply mentions that the purchases as per the revised returned are of ₹ 1,40,22,080/-. No verification or inspection has been made by the sales tax department into the correctness of the said p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 has admitted that the original VAT return filed before the Sales Tax Department has some mistake and to patch up the inflation of purchase he filed revised return of VAT is purely after thought. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing that certificate issued by the Sales Tax Department simply mentions that the purchases as per the revised returned are of ₹ 1,40,22,080/- and no verification or inspection has been made by the sales tax department into the correctness of the said purchases shown of the assessee in the revised VAT return of the assessee. Keeping in view the basis taken by the authorities below, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, submitted reply dated 08.03.2013 along with purchase register and all relevant purchase bills for verification before the AO. The assessee in his written submission also submitted that the figure submitted with Sales Tax Department may be different but it will be verified at the time of audit by the Sales Tax Department. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Department after verification of relevant record issued a certificate dated 29.05.2015 confirmed that the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department into the correctness of the said purchase shown by the assessee in the revised return. Obviously when a competent authority has issued certificate stating same facts from certifying same facts and figures then it has to be presumed that the same has been issued in consonance with the record available with that authority after verifying the relevant records and documents until and unless it is proved otherwise by way of sustainable contrary evidence. In the present case, the observations made by the CIT(A) in para 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 are hypertechnical and have no legs to stand on the well accepted judicial principle, therefore, I dismiss the same. 11. On the basis of foregoing discussion, I reached to logical conclusion that when the figures of purchase shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account are matching with the figures certified by the Sales Tax Department and VAT return filed by the assessee, then no addition can be made on the basis of earlier tentative figure shown by the assessee as per Sales Tax Department. Accordingly, ground No.2 of assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to delete the addition. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
