Ananda Trading Company, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1067/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8698 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , # '$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . /ITA NO. 1067/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. ANANDA TRADING COMPANY, NO.1, KUMARAPPA MAISTRY STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. PAN AAAFA1191J ( /APPELLANT) V. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-VIII(1), CHENNAI. RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 22.08.2016 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.08.2016 % / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DATED 28 .1.2016. - - ITA 1067/16 2 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 3 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO COMMU NICATION PROBLEM BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, THE DELAY IS OCCURRED, WHICH IS UNINTENTI ONAL AND BONA FIDE. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE C ONDONED. IN OUR OPINION, THE DELAY IS UNINTENTIONAL AND BONA FI DE. HENCE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. THE FIRST GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD T O DISALLOWANCE OF 2,15,217/ -. THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AN EXPENDITURE OF 8,55,053/- TOWARDS INTEREST PAYMENT. THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE AMOUNT OF 2,15,217/-, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAI NED FORM 15G FROM THE RECIPIENT OF THE INTEREST INCOME. AS SUCH, NO TDS IS TO BE MADE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NOT HING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COL LECTED FORM 15G AS PER RULE 29C OF THE I.T.RULES. - - ITA 1067/16 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IS TOTALLY M ISCONCEIVED, AS THERE IS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS COLLECTED FORM 15G FROM THE RECIPIENT OF THE INTERE ST INCOME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON THE S AID AMOUNT AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE O F INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LIFE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THIS EXPENDITURE IS PER SONAL IN NATURE AND NOT USED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 9. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE O F 1,69,580/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 10. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE IS A DISAL LOWANCE OF 1,69,580/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED - - ITA 1067/16 4 NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM CREDIT S WERE GIVEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS FROM THE PURCHASERS THROU GH NEFT/RTGS, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY D ETAILS REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES. HENCE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABL E TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS TO IDENTIFY THE PARTIES. WHEN THIS WAS QUESTIONED, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT IT MAY BE REMITTED FOR FRESH CON SIDERATION TO THE AO. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTIFY AND THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO APPRE CIATE THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR. IT IS MANDATORY ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES ALONG WITH PAN. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE N OT IN A POSITION EVEN TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR F RESH CONSIDERATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO PR OVE THE - - ITA 1067/16 5 IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 24 TH OF AUGUST, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $% & ) ( ' ( ) $ ) *%+,-,./01,2345,.62,+778,293 : ;< /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ;<=>>70.?,.?@A1BA2 ': /CHENNAI, C; /DATED, THE 24 TH AUGUST, 2016. MPO* ;D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H3 /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. JLM /GF.