Amar Sparklers Factory Sivakasi vs DCIT Madurai

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘सी’ यायपीठ, चेनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI ी चं पूजार , लेखा सद य के सम BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.

Nos.1308 & 1309/Mds/2015 ( नधारण वष / Assessment Years : 2004-2005 & 2005-2006) Amar Sparklers Factory, No.38, M.C.

Street, Sivakasi 626 123. [PAN:AAEFA 4270G] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C.C.

III, Madurai (!"यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : Shri.

V.

Rajasekaran, C.A. यथ क ओर से / Respondent by : Shri.

A.B.

Koli, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of hearing : 28.08.2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2015 आदेश / O R D E R These appeals by the assessee are directed against common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, dated 24.02.2015 for the above assessment years.

Since the issue involved in these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are combined, heard together, and disposed of by this order for the sake of convenience.

I.T.A.Nos.

1308 &1309/Mds/2015 :- 2 -: 2.

The assessee has raised the following ground in ITA No.1308/Mds/2015 ‘’1.

The Respectable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai was not justified while passing the order on account of difference amount in sales E2,85,754/- and being handling and forwarding charges collected/credited in packing materials account of E2,80,800.41 instead of credit in Profit and Loss account and Mahamai paid E4,953.42’.

3.

The facts of the case are that there was a search u/s.132 of the Act in the case of M/s.

Amar Sparklers Factory and its partners on 21.10.2008.

Books of accounts, documents and other materials relating to the assessee and the group concerns were found and seized.

Subsequently, relevant statutory notices were issued.

The assessee filed return of incomes for the AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 admitting E4,58,860/- and E6,39,634/ - respectively on 23.12.2009.

3.12.2009.

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found out that the sales turnover as per Sales tax Order is E79,60,649/ - and E90,15,228/ - for the assessment ears 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively whereas the assessee firm had admitted only E76,74,894/- and E.87,11,015/- for the .same as sales made including Mahamai and insurance.

1308 &1309/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: Hence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.2,85,754/- and E3,04,213/-for the AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06, being the difference between the sales tax order and the sales made to the total income of the assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

4.

On appeal, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the contention of the assessee are found to be apparently not correct and against the uncontrolled fact recorded in the assessment order.

The Assessing Officer in the assessment order for the assessment year 2004-05 has observed that the sales as per Sales Tax Order is Rs.79,60,649/- whereas the assessee firm had admitted E76,74,894/- as sales including mahamai and insurance.

Similarly these figures of turnover as per Sales Tax order and as admitted turnover at Rs.

9015228/- and Rs.

8711015/- respectively have been recorded in the assessment order for the assessment year 2005-06.

The assessee has not controverted the above said facts recorded in the assessment orders with any material or evidence.

No evidence has been brought on record in support of the grounds of appeal taken I.T.A.Nos.

1308 &1309/Mds/2015 :- 4 -: by the assessee.

In the absence of any material or evidence brought on record to controvert the facts recorded the assessment order to support the grounds of appeal, there was no reason or basis to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer in making the aforesaid additions on account of difference in the sales as per the admitted turnover in the income tax and turnov and turnover as per the Sales Tax order in both assessment years under appeal.

Accordingly, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

Both sides heard.

The ld.

Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that there was difference in turnover disclosed to the sales tax department and the turnover disclosed to the Income tax department on account of inclusion of Mahamai, handling charges and transit insurance and if the above items are excluded, there will be no difference of turnover disclosed to the sales tax department and the income tax department.

6.

In my opinion, the assessee has not properly reconciled these two turnovers before the Assessing Officer and only argued without I.T.A.Nos.

1308 &1309/Mds/2015 :- 5 -: any supportive evidence.

In my opinion, it is appropriate to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to properly reconcile these two turnovers with supportive evidence before the Assessing Officer.

Accordingly, this issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

7.

Since the issue is common in ITA No.1309/Mds/2015, this issue is also remitted to the Assessing Officer on similar direction.

8.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No.1308 & 1309/Mds/2015 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 5th day of September, 2015, at Chennai.

Sd/- (चं पूजार ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) लेखा सद य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai. #दनांक/Dated: .09.2015.

KV आदेश क  त&ल'प अ(े'षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ/Appellant 2.यथ/ Respondent 3. आयकर आयु*त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु*त/CIT 5. 'वभागीय  त न-ध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.

1308 &1309/Mds/2015 :- 6 -: