9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat [for short CIT(A) ] dated 04.05.2022, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO for short) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) vide order dated 29.09.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows:- [i] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an order u/s 154 of the Act dated 31.12.2021 manually and without generating DIN even though the case was not falling under the exceptions prescribed vide Para-3 of Circular No.19/2019 issued by the CBDT and also erred in not regularizing the same within 15 working days of its issuance and hence the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 31.12.2021 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for reinstating the dismissed appeal shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued and consequently the impugned order under appeal becomes non-est and bad in law. [ii] On the facts and in the circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elating to addition in respect of unaccounted job work received were discussed and adjudicated , wherein 5% of alleged unaccounted job work addition was confirmed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present Revenue s appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (supra) and copy of which was also placed before the Bench. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and also stated that ground Nos.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue in present appeal is different which have not been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee s own group cases (supra), therefore issues in the present appeal of Revenue is different and not squarely covered in favour of assessee by the order of this Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra). 5. We see no reason to take any other view than the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in assessee s own group cases (supra) vide order dated 21.12.2022, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: 11. We have heard the submissions of both the parties on merit. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no unaccounted stock or work-in-progress found during the course of search action. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that entire addition was liable to be deleted. 13. In alternative submission, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that average net profit in previous and subsequent year, the assessee was only 1.82% and the addition, if any, has to be restricted only to such gross profit and not the substantial part of alleged transaction. 14. In second alternative submission, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in assessees group cases in Sitaram Prints Private Limited, which was also covered in the same search action, the Assessing Officer on a similar transaction made addition @ 20% of alleged unaccounted job work receipt, however, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the similar addition was restricted to 5%. And on further appeal before Tribunal in IT(SS)A No(s). 67-68/SRT/2021 and ITA No.157/SRT/2021 in the case of Sitaram Prints Private Limited Vs. DCIT, dated 17.08.2022, the action of CIT(A) in those appeals was upheld. So the issue raised in all the appeals / cross appeals are covered. 15. In rejoinder Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that order of Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ization and data maintained in Purchi software is only for organization the how can reprocessing work be done after the one month of dispatch of finished goods. Such action shows that the claim of reprocessing is not genuine. On the basis of such discrepancies, the Assessing Officer was of the view that there are two different set of data related to job works maintained in the computer and data maintained in Purchi software is not accounted in the books of account. The Assessing officer disallowed 20% of receipt of unaccounted job work by treating as 20% profit of such unaccounted job work. 10. As noted above, before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed written submission. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that it is clear that the data found stored in file of Purchi software does not match with the regular books of account, thus the Assessing officer has proved beyond doubt with detailed discussion in the assessment order that the data recorded in this file remains unaccounted. The documentary evidences in the form of invoices and job bills found, there were several differences between these documents, which the Assessing Officer ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f to the assessee and directed to tax only to the extent of 5% of Rs.2.589 Crore. In our view the ld CIT(A) has already granted substantial relief to the assessee, which we affirm. Hence, we do not find any merit in further reducing the addition which has already been reduced substantially by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any justifiable reason to given further relief to the assessee. 13. In the result, this appeal of is dismissed. 17. In the present set of appeals, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue specifically argued that in case of Sitaram Prints Private Limited (supra) there was no cross-appeal filed by Revenue for the want of tax effect, therefore the Tribunal was unable to enhance the ratio of disallowance restricted by Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) while restricting the addition to the extent of 5% of alleged unaccounted job work receipt followed by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of President Industries (supra), wherein it was held that on the issue of suppression of said consideration only the addition to the extent of profit element may be made . We are also of the view that wherein there is no fool proof of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus, the assessee has shown additional income of Rs.31 lakhs and mistake apparent was accepted by Ld. CIT(A) and passed order under section 154 of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee, thus, supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 154 of the Act dated 05.08.2021. 21. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the order of ld CIT(A) carefully. We find that there is no dispute that assessee while filing return of income under section 139(1) on 27.09.2011 declared income of Rs.1.76 crores. However, in response to notice under section 153A the assessee offered / declared income at Rs.2.07 crores. Thus, the assessee offered additional income of Rs. 31 lacks and case of assessee is that there was voluntary disclosure of undisclosed business income and was eligible for telescoping of such income. We find that only issue in the assessment order was with regard to unaccounted job work receipt. The addition was made on account of estimated profit of unaccounted job work receipt. Initially, Assessing Officer made addition @ 20% of such impugned unaccounted job charges. On appeal, which was restricted @ 5% of the total disputed una ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
