Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on undisclosed receipts adding, finding no error in detailed reconciliation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of undisclosed receipts made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, considering the detailed reconciliation provided by the assessee to explain the discrepancy in receipts. The Tribunal noted the difference in treatment of service tax and concluded that the CIT(A) had properly analyzed the discrepancies and reasons for the differences in declared receipts. As the Revenue failed to present any material to contradict the findings, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleting the addition of Rs. 72,76,821 made on account of undisclosed receipts.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The assessee, a company engaged in the business of advertisement, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year declaring total income. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer asked for reconciliation of gross receipts as per books of account and 26AS. The assessment was completed accepting the reconciliation. However, in reassessment, the Assessing Officer raised the issue again. The discrepancy was explained by the assessee as service tax not included in turnover recorded in books but included in 26AS, leading to the addition of undisclosed receipts.

2. The assessee challenged the action before the CIT(A) by providing a detailed reconciliation explaining the discrepancy in receipts. The CIT(A) accepted the explanation and reconciliation, deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

3. The Revenue contended that the service tax payable amount was not paid to the Central Excise Department during the relevant year, leading to discrepancies in receipts shown in income tax return and service tax return. The Assessing Officer noted differences in receipts shown in books, service tax return, and bills raised. The Revenue relied on the AO's order.

4. The assessee explained the discrepancy due to service tax included in gross receipts but not in books. The difference in treatment was due to service tax payable on collection basis till a certain date and irrespective of payment thereafter. The books were maintained on a mercantile basis, while service tax returns were filed on actual receipt basis.

5. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the material on record. It noted the difference in treatment of service tax and the reconciliation provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) had detailed the discrepancies and reasons for the differences in receipts declared. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the deletion of the addition.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had considered the specific facts of the case, including the discrepancy in 26AS compared to books of account. The bills, service tax, and TDS deductions were analyzed, and no material was presented by the Revenue to contradict the findings. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

---