IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1067/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 M/S A.K. INDUSTRIES 6/9, NABIN BANERJEE LANE, HOWRAH-711104 [ PAN NO.AAKFA 2281 R ] / V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-46 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S. VENKATERAMANI, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 22-01-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31-01-2019 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 , ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-14, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 28.02.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.95/CIT(A)-14/CIR-46/2013-14 INVOLVING PR OCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARANCE AT ASSESSEES BE HEST DESPITE THE FACT THAT REGISTRY HAS ALREADY ISSUED AN RPAD NOTICE DATED 4/ 5.12.2018 THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED EX PARTE. I TAKE UP ITS INSTA NT APPEAL ON MERITS. 2. THE ASSESSEES FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND PLEADS T HAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF 54,587/- IN RESPECT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES CITING PERSONAL USE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S TRONGLY ARGUES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CI T(A) HAVE RIGHTLY INVOKED THE ITA NO.1067/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2010- 11 M/S A.K. INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT, CIR-46,KOL. PAGE 2 IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE @ 20% OF TOTAL SUM AMOUNTING TO 1,74,219/-. I FIND AT THE OUTSET THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR CIT(A ) HAVE QUOTED ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON OR DRAWN ANY COMPARISON QUA THE INSTANT DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE FACT REMAINS THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO INDICATE ANY PIN-POINT USE OF HIS MOTOR CAR(S) IN QUESTION FOR B USINESS PURPOSES ONLY. I THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S THAT A LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE OF 20,000/- THEN THE IMPUGNED SUM OF 54,587/- WOULD BE JUST AND PROPER WITH A RIDER THAT SAME SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT IN AN Y PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF TO T HE EXTENT OF 74,587/- WITH RESPECT TO IT FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. 3. NEXT COMES ASSESSEES SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKING TO DELETE FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSE OF 94,413/-. ITS CASE THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN THAT ONE OF ITS PARTNER MR. AYAN MALLICK VISITED GERMANY TO PROCURE SOME MACHINERY I TEMS WHICH HAD TO BE PURCHASED IN NEAR FUTURE. I FIND FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD EVEN THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF MACHINERY INSPECTED IN GERM ANY. THE CIT(A) HAD AFFORDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHILST RESTORE TH E ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IT AGAIN FAILED TO PROVE ALLOWABILITY OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE. I THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFER E WITH THIS SECOND AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL DISALLOWANCE. THE AS SESSEE FAILS IN ITS INSTANT SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE AS WELL. 4. LASTLY COMES ADDITION OF 6,11,895/- AS CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM UTTA R HARYANA BIJLI VITRN NIGAM. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION AS UNDER:- GROUND 5 THIS GROUND RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.6, 11,895 AS CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIG AM LTD. THE AO NOTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE APPELLANT HA S NOT SHOWN ANY SUCH INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHEREAS RECEIPT OF E QUIVALENT SUM HAS BEEN REFLECTED INFORM 26A. IN THE REMAND REPORT IT IS FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR THE APPELLANT MADE A TOTAL SALE T O UHBVN OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,81,99,136 INCLUDING FREIGHT CHARGES OF RS.6,05 ,406. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COMMISSION UP WIT H ANY PROOF AS TO HOW THE RECEIPT MENTIONED IN FORM 26A HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FO R IN ITS BOOKS AND HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ARRIVING AT ITS TOTAL IN COME. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. IT I ALSO NOT EXPLAINED S TO WHAT CONTRACT GA VE RISE TO THE TOTAL CONTRACT ITA NO.1067/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2010- 11 M/S A.K. INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT, CIR-46,KOL. PAGE 3 RECEIPT VALUE OF RS.6,11,895 AS SHOWN IN FORM 26AS. INSTEAD THE APPELLANT TRIES TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION REFLECTED IN FORM 26AIN TERMS OF SALE VALUE WHICH IS A MUCH HIGHER FIGURE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,81,99,136. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY WORTHY ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION IN RESPEC T OF THE DISCREPANCY AS NOTED BY THE AO, THE UNDERSIGNED IS OF THE VIEW THA T ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION OF ADDITION OF RS.6,11,895 IS REASONABLE AND JUSTIF IABLE. ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. APPS GROUND FAILS. 5. I HAVE GIVEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO ASSE SSEES PLEADINGS AND REVENUES ARGUMENT. SUFFICE TO SAY, THE ASSESSING O FFICERS REMAND REPORT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED IMPUGNED SU M FROM THE ABOVE ENTITY AS PER FORM 26AS STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISPUTE CORRECTNESS THEREOF DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. I THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO R EVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE SAME STAND S CONFIRMED ACCORDINGLY. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOV E TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/01/2019 SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBE R KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - 31/01/2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-M/S A.K. INDUSTRIES, 6/9, NABINBANRJEE L ANE, HOWRAH-711104 2. /RESPONDENT-ACIT, CIR-46, 3GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLK ATA-001 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / ',