Parkash Kumar Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs Assessee

Sri Ranjit Ku mar Sa rkar V/s. Inco me Tax Officer, Dhanka ilhat, P .O. W ard -1 P.O. Ka liaganj, Uttar Dinajpur, Karno jora , Pin. 7 33 129 Raiganj,Uttar D inajpur [PAN No. AMGPS 5878Q] Pin 733 130

अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent

अपीलाथ क ओर से/By Appellant Shri Debabrata Ghosh, Advocate यथ क ओर से/By Respondent Shri Sanjay, Adl. CIT, DR

सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 12-06-2015

घोषणा क तार ख/Date of Pronouncement 15-06-2015

आदेश /O R D E R

PER P.K.Bansal, Accountant Member:-

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jalpaiguri dated 14-02-2011 by taking following effective grounds for the assessment year 2004-05:-

"1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and was not justified in making addition of:

(a) Rs.2,19,300.00 on account of 'bogus credit' u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961;

(b) Rs.2,01,140.00 on account of alleged 'bogus credit' u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961;

ITA No.733/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 Sh. Ranjit Kr. Sarkar v. ITO Wd-1 RNJ Page 2

(c) Rs. 86,663.00 on account of 'disallowance of fuel expenses' which amount was incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business."

2. First issue relate to the addition of bogus credit amounting to ₹2,19,300/- and ₹ 2,01,140/- on account of other bogus credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. We have heard rival submissions and carefully considered the same along with the orders of Tax Authorities Below. We noted that in respect of the cash credit of ₹2,19,300/- the Assessing Officer in para-3 of the assessment order mentioned that Mr.Hari Gopal Paul in his reply stated that business transactions were made by the assessee. But there was no payment or receipt with the above mentioned party during the above period. This statement itself proved that Mr. Hari Gopal Paul in whose name, there was a credit of ₹ 2,19,300/- has accepted that the credit belongs to him but there was no money receipt or paid during the aforesaid period. But the AO incorrectly, in our opinion, for the purpose of making the addition interpreted it as if Mr. Hari Gopal Paul denied to have any business transaction with the assessee. Since Mr. Hari Gopal Paul, we also noted that the assessee also claimed that he made the payment in the financial year 2004-05. We therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 2,19,300/-.

4. So far as the addition of ₹2,01,140/- is concerned we noted that assessee claimed that this relate to purchase and he made from Rahul Oil & Mini Rice Mill. But Sri Ranjit Kundu on behalf of the said mill has denied any transaction been entered into with the assessee. In view of this facts, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and sustaining the addition of ₹ 2,01,140/-.

5. So far as the disallowance of ₹ 86,663/- is concerned we noted that the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.86,663/- under the head "fuel expenses" on the basis that fuel consumption is very high i.e. 73% in completion with freight ITA No.733/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 Sh. Ranjit Kr. Sarkar v. ITO Wd-1 RNJ Page 3

receipt. The explanation submitted by the assessee that vehicle were very old and there was low mileage average was rejected, when the assessee went before CIT(A). We noted that assessee also could not adduce the supportive evidence for the sum of ₹ 86,663/- and simply he stated that sometimes the fuel are purchased by driver and therefore the bills were also lost. Before us also assessee could not produce the bills, in our opinion, disallowing the sum of ₹86,663/- is very high and we reduce it at ₹43,331/-. Thus, the disallowance of ₹86,663/- is reduced to ₹43,331/-.

6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15/06/2015

Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (P.K.Bansal) (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Kolkata,

*Dkp दनांकः- 15/06/2015 कोलकाता । आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1. अपीलाथ / Appellant - Sri Ranjit Kr. Sarkar, Dhankailhat, P.O. Kaliaganj, Uttar Dinajpur, Pin 733 129

2. यथ / Respondent- ITO Ward-1, P.O. Karnojora, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur

3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT

4. आयकर आयु त- अपील / CIT (A)

5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata

6. गाड फाइल / Guard file.

By order/आदेश से, /True copy/ उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, कोलकाता ।