Surajit Dey v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5279 (Kol-Trib) IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. & A.T. VARKEY, J.M. Surajit Dey v. ITO I.T.A. No. 1847/Kol/2018 14 August, 2020 In favour of Assessee. Appellant by: Miraj D. Shah, Advocate Respondent by: Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, DR ORDER *A.T. Varkey, J.M.* This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-13, Kolkata dated 16-7-2018 for assessment year 2015-16. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :-- '1. For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the facts and circumstances of the case was not justified in modifying and enhancing the returned income and thereby sustaining addition to the tune of Rs. 14,40,340 against export sales of Rs. 31,21,380 to Bangladesah. 2. For that in course of hearing of the case and passing the order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disallowing bona fide transportation charges and damage claim paid by the appellant of Rs. 2,31,500 and Rs. 1,45,000 respectively and related export for export. 3. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deriving 40% profit on alleged undisclosed export sales of Rs. 31,21,380, which is excessive and unjustified and in reality such net profit in the hands of small businessman never exists.' 2. The facts pertaining to the aforesaid grounds are that the assessing officer noted that the assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 7,28,370. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny. The assessing officer notes that assessee was the proprietor of two concerns viz. M/s. Crystal Express and M/s. Crystal Enterprises. The concern M/s. Crystal Enterprises was engaged in importing of fruit juices and biscuits from Bangladesh which was later sold in the local markets. The assessing officer also notes that with the sale proceeds which the assessee gets from the sale of imported fruit juice and biscuits, the assessee purchased fish dust and exported it to Bangladesh. The assessing officer also noted that the assessee was the proprietor of another concern M/s. Crystal Express which was involved in supply of vehicles to customers for transportation. Thereafter, the assessing officer notes that there was mismatch in sales turnover as reported in the audit report and income tax return. According to him, the assessee's sales turnover as reported in the audit report was to the tune of Rs. 1,20,47,415 whereas the gross turnover as per the income tax return was only Rs. 36,29,793; And since the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate/reconcile the mismatch between the sales turnover and purchases, the assessing officer computed the difference of Rs. 84,17,622, i.e., (Rs. 1,20,47,415 - Rs. 36,29,793) as undisclosed turnover which was added as the undisclosed income of the assessee. Further, the assessing officer noted that assessee has shown in the income tax return (ITR) purchases less than the invoice value of imports. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5279 (Kol-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH

J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. & A.T. VARKEY, J.M.

Surajit Dey v. ITO

I.T.A. No. 1847/Kol/2018

14 August, 2020

In favour of Assessee.

Appellant by: Miraj D. Shah, Advocate

Respondent by: Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, DR

ORDER

A.T. Varkey, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-13, Kolkata dated 16-7-2018 for assessment year 2015-16. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :--

'1. For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the facts and circumstances of the case was not justified in modifying and enhancing the returned income and thereby sustaining addition to the tune of Rs. 14,40,340 against export sales of Rs. 31,21,380 to Bangladesah.

2. For that in course of hearing of the case and passing the order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disallowing bona fide transportation charges and damage claim paid by the appellant of Rs. 2,31,500 and Rs. 1,45,000 respectively and related export for export.

3. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deriving 40% profit on alleged undisclosed export sales of Rs. 31,21,380, which is excessive and unjustified and in reality such net profit in the hands of small businessman never exists.'

2. The facts pertaining to the aforesaid grounds are that the assessing officer noted that the assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 7,28,370. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny. The assessing officer notes that assessee was the proprietor of two concerns viz. M/s. Crystal Express and M/s. Crystal Enterprises. The concern M/s. Crystal Enterprises was engaged in importing of fruit juices and biscuits from Bangladesh which was later sold in the local markets. The assessing officer also notes that with the sale proceeds which the assessee gets from the sale of imported fruit juice and biscuits, the assessee purchased fish dust and exported it to Bangladesh. The assessing officer also noted that the assessee was the proprietor of another concern M/s. Crystal Express which was involved in supply of vehicles to customers for transportation. Thereafter, the assessing officer notes that there was mismatch in sales turnover as reported in the audit report and income tax return. According to him, the assessee's sales turnover as reported in the audit report was to the tune of Rs. 1,20,47,415 whereas the gross turnover as per the income tax return was only Rs. 36,29,793; And since the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate/reconcile the mismatch between the sales turnover and purchases, the assessing officer computed the difference of Rs. 84,17,622, i.e., (Rs. 1,20,47,415 - Rs. 36,29,793) as undisclosed turnover which was added as the undisclosed income of the assessee. Further, the assessing officer noted that assessee has shown in the income tax return (ITR) purchases less than the invoice value of imports.