Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 395 - ITAT PUNEAddition to the total income of assessee under pretext of mismatch in the amount of sales turnover as per accounts - assessee is engaged in the profession of consultancy relating to construction diagnosis under his proprietary concern - HELD THAT:- AR has merely filed three sample sale invoices, however, these sample invoices do not demonstrate that the actual amount which has been deposited in bank contains sales tax amount also. In Form 3CD column No. 26 is regarding “sum referred in s. 43B”. Thus, column 26 is regarding sales tax, custom duty, excise duty etc. In column No. 26, assessee has merely returned NIL. It means, in Form 3CD, assessee has not claimed that there is NIL sales tax amount collected by assessee and out of that NIL amount deposited by assessee and outstanding at the end of the year is NIL. If there is any sales tax amount collected/outstanding which could have been shown in Form 3CD (column No. 26), but not such amount appears in column No. 26 of Form 3CD. Form 3CD is duly signed by Chartered Accountant (CA). The assessee along with the return of income has filed details of TDS and gross receipts. The said gross receipts have been shown by the assessee in profit and loss account, therefore, the assessee’s plea which he has taken before us that gross receipts includes sales tax amount is factually incorrect, as in schedule 6, assessee has shown gross receipts TDS and that gross receipts has been shown in profit and loss account. Had there been any component of sales tax, assessee would have qualified it either in the statement of income or in Form 3CD, but nowhere assessee has qualified the same.T he assessee’s claim that the difference is on account of sales tax liability is devoid of merit, therefore we uphold the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed. Addition made out of the purview of limited scrutiny - HELD THAT:- One of the reasons for selection of case for scrutiny was higher turnover reported in service tax return compared to ITR, mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report and ITR mismatch, 26AS and ITR. Thus, the case was mainly selected on ground of ‘mismatch’ between the figures shown by the assessee in income tax return vis-a-vis other. The AO has made the addition to the turnover of the assessee based on this mismatch only. Therefore, there is no merit in this ground and accordingly, ground No. 4 of the assessee is dismissed. Difference in receipts/sales which the assessee has agreed in assessment and/appellate proceedings be ignored and deleted since the said agreement was not in keeping with facts and circumstances of the case and the law - HELD THAT:- If assessee has agreed for the difference, then there is no reason for the assessee to file this appeal unless assessee proves that acceptance was on account of coercion, threat, undue influence. In this case, the assessee has not alleged that there was any coercion, threat, undue influence. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the ground No. 5 of the assessee is dismissed. Thus, assessee has pleaded that the assessee has agreed for the difference in receipts/sales during the course of assessment proceedings. If assessee has agreed for the difference, then there is no reason for the assessee to file this appeal unless assessee proves that acceptance was on account of coercion, threat, undue influence. In this case, the assessee has not alleged that there was any coercion, threat, undue influence. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the ground No. 5 of the assessee is dismissed. Only profit element should be taxed, if at all addition is sustained - HELD THAT:- The assessee in income and expenditure account, had claimed expenditure for AY 2015-16, but shown less turnover, therefore the expenditure pertaining to the said amount has already been claimed by the assessee in profit and loss account. Therefore, the AO was right in making addition of entire amount therefore there is no merit in the assessee’s claim that only profit shall be taxed, hence, ground No. 6 of the assessee is dismissed. CIT(A) has not considered the submissions of the assessee AND has disposed the appeal without affording adequate opportunity of being heard - HELD THAT:- There is no merit in the said ground as both the AO and the ld.CIT(A) had reproduced the assessee’s submissions and have arrived at the decision after considering his submissions. Also CIT(A) has reproduced the assessee’s submissions and after considering the submissions, ld.CIT(A) has passed the order. Therefore, there is no merit in the allegation leveled by the assessee that ld.CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity of hearing. Decided against assessee.
|