Accounting discrepancies cannot be termed as suppression of purchases in the strict sense

Last updated: 02 October 2021

Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the CIT(A)�s order dated 14.08.2017. The relevant assessment year is 2006-2007.

Citation :
ITA No.304/Bang/2021: Asst.Year 2006-2007

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE “SMC-C” BENCH, BANGALORE
Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member
ITA No.304/Bang/2021: Asst.Year 2006-2007

M/s.Gowdara Jayadevappa Silks
& Sarees, No.672, Chowkipet
Davangere – 577 001.
PAN : AADFG2804P.

The Asst.Commissioner of
Income-tax, Circle – 1
Davangere

Appellant by : Sri.K.Y.Ningoji Rao, CA
Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Date of Hearing : 14.09.2021
Date of
Pronouncement : 20.09.2021
O R D E R

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 14.08.2017. The relevant assessment year is 2006-2007.

2. The solitary issue argued was that whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition of Rs.3,84,730 disregarding that the impugned amount was offered to tax by the assessee in assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, which tantamount to double taxation.

3. Aggrieved by the addition of Rs.3,84,730, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, it was contended that the difference was due to certain accounting discrepancies in the books of account of the assessee and M/s.Ajay’s Bangalore and not due to suppression of purchases, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed elaborate written submission before the CIT(A). The extracts of the same are reproduced at pages 14 to 19 of the impugned order.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 20th day of September, 2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement