M/s Paramount Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

CO 92/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0998 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER ITA NO : 866/DEL/2011 AY : - 2006-07 ACIT VS. PARAMOUNT IMP EX PVT. LTD. CIRCLE-14(1) S AMREEDI, C-8/8834, ROOM NO. 415, VASA NT KUNJ, 4 TH FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI. (PAN AAACP7279B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO : 92/DEL/2011 AY : - 2006-07 PARAMOUNT IMPEX PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT SAMREEDI, C-8/8834, CIRCLE-14(1), VASANT KUNJ, ROOM NO. 415, NEW DELHI 4 TH FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTA TE, NEW DELHI. (PAN AAACP7279B) (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY :NONE DATE OF HEARING :08.7.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 .7.2015 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) XVII DATED 15.11.2010 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 8,43,567 /- OUT OF PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEES, RS. 8,79,987/- OUT OF OFFICE AND SELLING EXPENSES, RS.87,07,Q2Q/- OUT OF COMMISSION PAID AND RS.9,36,336/- OUT OF FIN ANCE CHARGES {TOTALLING TO RS.1,13,66,910/-} MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNVE RIFIED EXPENSES AS THE ITA NO.866/DEL/2011 & CO NO. 92/DEL/ 2011 ACIT VS. M/S. PAR AMOUNT IMPEX PVT. LTD. 2 ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITY GIVEN, FAILED TO P RODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND OTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIM ED. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD A NY FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND OR/DELETED OR AMEND ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL '. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESEE D ESPITE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES WE DISPOSE OF THESE CASES, EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESEE AFTER HEARIN G THE LD. DR. 3. HEARD THE LD. DR SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY. THE SOLE GROUND ON WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT (A) OF CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO IN AN ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 15.12.2008. THE AO IN THIS CASE PASSED AN EX PARTE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR VARIOUS E XPENSES. ADHOC DISALLOWANCES @ 10% OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS MADE. THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE. AS THE AO HAD NOT ADDRESSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE I N HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 9.7.2010. THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNI TY TO THE AO TO MEET THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER AT PARA 4.1 HE HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR AND PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND REJOINDER OF THE LD. AR TO THE REMAND REPORT. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO, THE COMPLETE DETAILS O F EXPENSES. UNLIKE THE GP RATE ADDITION, IN THE CASE OF ABOVE EXPENSES, THE A PPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS OF FURNISHING THE NECESSARY DETAILS AN D PRINTOUT OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS RELATING TO EXPENSES. THE AO HAS NOT DISPU TED THE FURNISHING OF THESE DETAILS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY HIM IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE D ETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME T O SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE S OF ABOVE EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO ARE DELETED. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO.866/DEL/2011 & CO NO. 92/DEL/ 2011 ACIT VS. M/S. PAR AMOUNT IMPEX PVT. LTD. 3 4. WHEN THIS FINDING IS READ WITH THE FINDING O F THE CIT(A) AT PARA 3.4 OF HIS ORDER, WHERE HE HAD UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ESTIMAT ING THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE REVENUE S EEKING SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE ON ADHOC BASIS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED. WHEN AN AD DITION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF GROSS PROFIT RATE, SEPARATE DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENS ES ARE NOT WARRANTED. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. 6. COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION, WE FIND NO INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHERE AT PARA 3.4 HE HAS UPHE LD THE ACTION OF THE AO, FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS PR IMARY ONUS THAT LAY ON IT. DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROD UCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING BILLS, VOUCHERS OF SALES, PURCHASES, ST OCK DETAILS ETC. HENCE THE BOOKS WERE REJECTED AND THE GROSS PROFIT ESTIMATED. HENCE WE DISMISS THE CO FILED BY THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 10 TH JULY, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ITA NO.866/DEL/2011 & CO NO. 92/DEL/ 2011 ACIT VS. M/S. PAR AMOUNT IMPEX PVT. LTD. 4 DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 8.7.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 9.7.20 15 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER