TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing addition of Rs. 11,72,124/- on account of unexplained/undisclosed transportation receipts as difference form 26AS and declared by the assessee. Hence the addition so made by the CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law and facts and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 3. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging of interest u/s 234A &B and 244A as consequential in nature. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. Hence the interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full." Grounds of revenue's appeal:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A), Kota has erred in :- (i) deleting addition of Rs. 14,37,582/- out of total addition made at Rs. 26,09,706/- on account of undisclosed transportation receipts; (ii) accepting the undisclosed receipts of Rs. 15,54,400/- related to assessment year 2008-09, without giving opportunity to the AO under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules 1962." 2. The assessee had filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 09/10/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 4,30,160/-. The return w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceipts in Respect of TDS certificate with amount of Rs. 1554400/- pertained to the earlier assessment year 2008-09 but were inadvertently wrongly attached with the return for the assessment year 2009-10. The balance amount of Rs. 1055266/- was duly accounted for in the books relating to assessment year 2009-10 and there was nothing undisclosed and unexplained. The learned ITO however, did not accept the contention of the assessee and made the addition of the impugned amount of Rs. 2609706/- to the total income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had partly allowed the appeal by observing as under:- "The submission of the assessee has been considered carefully but not found convincing. The submissions of the AR of the assessee, that by clerical mistake our client's employee had wrongly enclosed TDS certificates with I.T. return, related to last A. Yr. for Rs. 1554400/-(TDS Rs. 32986/-) is an afterthought. There is no supporting documentary evidence, furnished by the assessee which /justify that the assessee included these receipts in the A. Y. 2008-09. The assessee was filed detaile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has failed to show transportation receipts of Rs. 26,09,706/- of the above mentioned 25 parties in the transportation receipt shown in A. Y. 2009-10 and for which no justification/explanation was furnished by the assessee with supporting documentary evidence. I, therefore, make an addition of Rs. 26,09,706/- as unaccounted/undisclosed transportation receipt for the year under consideration and added the same to the total income of the assessee." On the other hand assessee claimed that all the receipts were duly accounted it was also claimed that TDS certificates of Rs. 1554400/- (receipt) were related to earlier year (plea taken before Assessing Officer also). To arrive at the correct decision the assessee was asked to prepare reconciliation among three figures:- (i) Turn over as TDS certificate (ii) Turn over as per 26AS & (iii) Turn over as per books of accounts. The same was done and as per this reconciliation the total difference came to Rs. 2726524/- out of which Rs. 1554400/- related to earlier year's TDS certificate. The difference related to this year was only Rs. 11,72,124/-. The assessee also claimed that only N. P. on undisclosed turnover should be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal proceedings got a Reconciliation statement prepared under the following 3 heads:- i) Turnover as per TDS certificates, ii) Turnover as per 26AS iii) Turnover as per books of accounts. He further argued that the total difference came to Rs. 2726524/-out of which Rs. 1554440/- as below related to assessment year 2008-09, but wrongly included with the return for assessment year 2009-10 but wrongly included: 1. Sita Ram Mangal Prop. Umang Stone International Rs. 1054246/- 2. Shri Ram Cattle Feed Rs. 303000/- 3. Hygine Feeds Rs. 41899/- 4. United Export Rs. 129240/- 5. United Export Rs. 26050/- Total Rs. 1554400/- The balance of Rs. 1172218/- related to the assessment year 2009-10 . It is submitted that transportation receipts from Ruchi Soya were of Rs. 2257218/- out of which receipts of Rs. 1112701/- were accounted for in the books and the balance was treated by the Id. CIT(A) un-disclosed receipts and confirmed the addition of Rs. 1172124/-. It is submitted that the difference as pointed out by the ITO, Bundi at Rs. 2609706/- had duly been explained property i.e. Rs. 1554440/- pertained to the assessment year 2008-09 and balance of Rs. 105....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ows that the amount related to a. year 2008- 09. In view of this the 2nd ground of appeal by the department is devoid of any substance and deserves to be rejected. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the revenue's appeal and appeal of the assessee may kindly be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The balance sheet of the assessee shows that the assessee has no fixed assets in the form of trucks. Therefore, the contention of the assessee seems to be correct whereby he has submitted that he has been hiring the trucks from the truck operators/truck owners and providing them on rent to the company namely Ruchi Soya. The accounts of the assessee have duly been examined and it reveals that neither the maintenance nor the other charges for running of the trucks have been debited to the accounts of the assessee. In our view, the addition sustained by the ld CIT(A) are required to be deleted as the amount were received by the assessee on behalf of the truck owners and therefore the entire amount cannot be treat as inc....