9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion submitted by the assessee at the face value. After considering the detailed submission of the assessee, we do not see any reason to sustain the addition made by the AO. AO has not substantiated how recording of imports in the books of account will lead to under valuation and suppression of income of the assessee. Thus, in the present case, even though there may be some difference in the reconciliation of gross assessable value, this will not lead to non-disclosure of income involved. Therefore, we are inclined to decide the issue in favour of the assessee as there is no involvement of undisclosed income. - Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon ble Vice President And Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [ ld. CIT(A) , for short] dated 21.08.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 20.11.2017 and subsequently, revised it on 05.06.2018 declaring a loss of Rs. 72,09,630/- for the AY 2017-18. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im and assessee has failed to reconcile the data with its ITR. Accordingly, he added the difference in invoice value of input as per export-import data and purchases as reported in ITR to the tune of Rs. 1,03,45,076/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) decided the issue against the assessee with the following observations :- I considered the facts of the case and submission filed by the appellant. The claim of the appellant that the ITS data was not shared by the AO is found to be incorrect statement, since the appellant in his reply submitted before AO has mentioned that number of transactions i.e. 6 and import duty paid was matching with the data with the AO but there was difference in value of the transactions. This clearly shows that the relevant data was shared with the appellant. It is also noted that the value of the import shown by the appellant is net of credit notes. However the appellant neither before nor before this office has explained the nature and amount of credit notes. It is also noted that the valuation made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected from CBEC and the Assessing Officer has relied the same. He also brought to our notice page 11 of the paper book which is the details of import during the year and contained the details of import value recorded in the books of account and the payment of customs duty. He submitted that no doubt, the customs assessable value was Rs. 2.84 crores, however the assessee has recorded the same by reducing the credit notes and the actual import cost to the assessee. He also brought to our notice page 100 of the paper book which is the schedule forming part of the balance sheet in which assessee has recorded only the actual import value in its books of account. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has relied on the general statement collected from the customs and also it is only a screen shot from customs. In this regard, he brought to our notice pages 71 to 83 of the paper book which contained the details of imports as well as adjustment of credit notes submitted before the customs authorities. Further, he submitted a chart invoice-wise with the explanation before us. For the sake of clarity, it is reproduced below :- S.No. Import Transaction Invoice Amount Amount recorded in the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of S.S. International v. PCIT (ITAT Rajkot) (ITA No.154/Rjt/2022) (16/06/2023) 6. It is worth mentioning that the imports are necessarily made through banking channel and in absence of any adverse material, no addition could be made on the alleged ground of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. 8. Further, he relied on the decision of ITAT, Rajkot Bench in the case of M/s. S.S. International vs. Pr.CIT-1, Rajkot in ITA No.154/RJT/2022 order dated 16.06.2023 wherein similar issue was adjudicated. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the decisions of lower authorities and further he submitted that if the Bench concedes it appropriate, this issue may be sent back to Assessing Officer for proper verification. 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the assessee has imported trading goods, consumables, tools and other assets. The Assessing Officer by relying on the export-import summary data from CBEC noticed that during the year, assessee has imported invoice value of Rs. 2.85 crores and paid the customs duty of Rs. 68,80,000/- whereas as per the information submitted before us, the assessee has recorded the value of imports in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.CIT in holding the assessment order as erroneous proceeded on a premise which did not exist and was totally unjustified. In the absence of break up, bill wise, of the exports of the assessee reflected In the ITS data, any explanation or reconciliation of the difference in the said exports from that reflected in the Books of the assessee was virtually impossible. The ITS data giving no breakup of export sales, therefore, we hold, had not been rightly considered by the AO during assessment proceedings for seeking any explanation from the assessee for difference from the export sales reflected in the books of the assessee. This being the only information with the Ld. PCIT, we hold, that there was no error in the order of the AO for not seeking any explanation on account of the information in ITS data. Further even as per the ld. Pr.CIT, the issue was restored back to the AO for verification of this aspect of export sales, for which purposes revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. There has to be a finding of error in the order of the AO causing prejudice to the Revenue for exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/ s 263 of the Act. A direction for verification of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
