INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH " D": NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 6478/Del/2016
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
ITO, Vs. KB Contract Pvt. Ltd,
Ward-14(1), 311-312, Jaina Tower-2,
New Delhi District Centre,
Janakpuri,
New Delhi
PAN: ADCK6091P
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Revenue by : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Assessee by: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CA
Date of Hearing 25/07/2018
Date of pronouncement 03/10/2018
ORDER
PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.
01. This appeal is filed by The Ld Income Tax Officer, Ward 14 (1),
and New Delhi against the order of The Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) V, New Delhi for assessment year 2012 13 in
case of M/s K. B. Contract (P) Limited.
02. The only ground of appeal is that the learned Commissioner
Appeal has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3198701/
and 2360970/ on account of bogus purchases under section
69C on account of substantiated creditors respectively, without
any basis and by ignoring the fact that the parties have provided
Page | 1
ITO Vs KB Contract Pvt. Ltd
ITA No. 6478/Del/2016
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
wrong information in the time of assessment.
03. Facts are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of
government contracting of external electrification. It filed return
of income on 7/3/2013 at Rs. 221450/- . During assessment,
assessee was asked to produce the bills of various parties.
Assessee submitted bills and it was noted that some bills of
generator did not match in case of one party. The Party
submitted different bill nos where s the assessee,,s books also
showed the different bills. Therefore, the dl AO treated the same
as unaccounted purchases and made an addition of Rs.
31,98701/- on account of purchases from only one party.
Further the learned AO issued notices under section 133 (6) of
the act to six parties. In response to that, information was
received from four suppliers. With respect to one supplier
amongst them, the difference in the balance was Rs 1094448/-
therefore the dl AO made the addition of that sum. With respect
to other two suppliers, as no information is received the ld AO
made the complete addition of balances with respect to two
creditors. Consequently further addition of Rs 2360970/- was
made u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish explanation
and AO treated 3198701- as unexplained expenditure applying
Page | 2
ITO Vs KB Contract Pvt. Ltd
ITA No. 6478/Del/2016
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
provisions of section 69C of the. On receipt of information from
buyers in case of suppliers he made addition of Rs 2360970/- .
Consequently assessment under section 143 (3) was passed on
17/3/2015 and determined total income of assessee of Rs.
5781121/- against returned income of Rs 221450/-.
04. The assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner Appeal
who vide order dated 5/10/2016 deleted the addition. The
learned assessing officer aggrieved by that order has preferred an
appeal before us.
05. The ld departmental representative, Shri Amit Jain vehemently
supported order of the learned AO and submitted that when the
assessee could not reconcile the difference between balances
shown by the assessee with balance of creditors and further no
information is received from two creditors u/s section 133 (6) of
the act by ld AO, assessee did not furnish any explanation, there
is no error in order of the Ld AO. The learned CIT A deleted the
addition of 3198701/- erroneously. With respect to the second
edition relied upon the order of the learned officer and stated that
when the difference between the balance shown by assessee
and balance shown by supplier is found which remained
unreconciled and when supplier information is not received
Page | 3
ITO Vs KB Contract Pvt. Ltd
ITA No. 6478/Del/2016
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
u/s 133 (6) by the learned assessing officer, the addition is
correctly made.
06. The d AR relied up on the orders of the CIT A and submitted that
there is no difference in the balances of suppliers as per books
and as per confirmation received. He read out para no three of
the order of the ld CIT A.
07. We have carefully considered the rival contention and orders of
lower authorities. The Commissioner A has deleted the addition
of Rs 3198701/- with respect to Sudhir Gensets Limited as the
Ld AO asked the details about the transaction with the assessee,
the supplier submitted the information about another party
M/s K B Contractor wrongly. Further information was given by
the assessee in 154 proceedings, which were rejected by the ld
AO. Hence addition on information received with respect to the
supplier, the dl CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs 3198701/- .
With respect to other parties similar matter existed and
confirmation was received so the ld CIT A deleted the addition.
The facts submitted in para no three of the order was not
controverted by the ld DR. With respect to only on party
information was not received where the addition was only of Rs.
38930/- which has been verified by the ld CIT (A) that in
Page | 4
ITO Vs KB Contract Pvt. Ltd
ITA No. 6478/Del/2016
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
subsequent period, the payment has been made by assessee by
cheque and it was confirmed through the bank statement of the
assessee as stated by the CIT A. So the whole addition was
deleted. The dl DR also could not show that where the ld CIT A
has gone wrong. We have also carefully seen the reason given by
the dl CIT A in para no three of his order and we do not find any
infirmity in his order. Therefore we uphold the order of the ld
CIT A deleting the above addition of Rs 3198701/- and Rs
2360970/-. The Solitary ground of appeal of ld AO is dismissed.
08. Accordingly, appeal of ld AO is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2018.
-Sd/- -Sd/-
(AMIT SHUKLA) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 03/10/2018
A K Keot
Copy forwarded to
1. Applicant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR:ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, New Delhi
Page | 5
|
