Pratima Twisters, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-8(3), Surat

ITA 1065/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6048 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 04/06/2010 DRAFTED ON: 04/0 6/2010 ITA NO.1065/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S.PRATIMA TWISTERS P-170, OLD GIDC KATARGAM SURAT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(3) SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AADFP 2723 L (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : -NONE- RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.C. PANDIT, SR. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-V, SURAT DATED 30/12/2009 AND THE SOLITARY SUBSTANTIAL GROUND READ S AS UNDER:- THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF ASSESS ING OFFICER, MAKING AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OUT OF UNPAID WAG ES OF WORKERS (WHICH REPRESENTS EXPENSE FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH ONLY) ALLEGING THAT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ARE NOT AVAILABL E AND SAME DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AN D THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS.36,740/-, IGNORING WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED. ITA NO.1 065/AHD/2010 M/S.PRATIMA TWISTERS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 2 - 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT ON T HE DATE OF HEARING, I.E. 04/06/2010, NO ONE APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF THE AP PELLANT, THOUGH THE NOTICE HAS DULY BEEN SERVED AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLACED ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE TRIFLE NATURE OF THE ADDITION, WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED TO EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 14/11/2008 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURI NG OF ART SILK CLOTH. ON PERUSAL OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, IT WA S NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,67,411/- UNDER THE HEAD UNPAID WAGES. THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, ON ACCOUNT OF INSUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISA LLOWED 10% OF THE SAID AMOUNT. THEREFORE, AN ADDITION OF RS.36, 741/- WAS MADE WHICH WAS CHALLENGED. 3. WHEN THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY IT WAS AGAIN NOTICED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO ADOPT AN ADHOC BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE BECAUSE OF NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS ALSO MENTIO NED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED BY AN AUD ITOR. SINCE THE ITA NO.1 065/AHD/2010 M/S.PRATIMA TWISTERS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 3 - ADDITION WAS AFFIRMED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS N OW FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E WHO HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. HOWEVER, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE F ACT THAT ALONGWITH THE APPEAL MEMO AS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE APPEL LANT HAS ANNEXED THE DETAILS OF UNPAID WAGES AND EXPENSES BY FURNISHING RELEVANT ACCOUNTS ALONGWITH CERTAIN PHOTOCOPIES OF VOUCHERS AND SALAR Y REGISTER ( PAKAR PATRAK ). IT HAS ALSO BEEN FOUND THAT IN THIS REGISTER, THE NAMES ALONGWITH AMOUNT HAVE BEEN REFLECTED WITH THE SIGNA TURES ON A REVENUE STAMP. ON ACCOUNT OF THIS FACT, ONCE THE APPELLAN T HAS FURNISHED THE REQUISITE EVIDENCES NOW BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THEREF ORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT INSTEAD OF PROCEEDING ON ADHOC BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE, IT IS BETTER TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENE SS OF THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF THESE EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE US. DUE T O THIS REASON, WE DEEM IT PROPER AND JUSTIFIABLE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SO THAT AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING THE MATTER CAN BE EXAMINED AND, ACCORDINGLY , DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE, IF ANY, DESIRABLE. SIMULTANEOUSLY, WE AL SO DIRECT THIS APPELLANT TO SUO MOTU APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WI THIN 15 DAYS ON RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT WAITI NG FOR THE FINAL NOTICE OF HEARING FROM THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WITH NECESSARY DETAILS AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE IN ORIGINAL, SO THAT THIS SMALL MATTER CAN SET AT REST AT AN EARLY DATE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1 065/AHD/2010 M/S.PRATIMA TWISTERS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 4 - 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11/ 06 /2010. SD/- SD/- ( A.N. PAHUJA ) ( MUKUL SHRAWA T ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11 / 06 /2010 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-V, SURAT 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD