M/s Padam Kumar Gupta, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

ITA 11/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100419 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.11/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-3(3), KANPUR VS M/S PADAM KUMAR GUPTA, 13, ANAND VILLA. 4/283, PARWATI BAGLA ROAD, KANPUR PAN AGBPG 7551 R (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) NONE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 22/09/2015 DATE OF HEARING 14/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A)-II, KANPUR DATED 22.09.2014 FOR THE AY 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: IN THE CASE OF PADAM KUMAR GUPTA, 13, ANAND VILLA, 4/283, PARWATI BAGLA ROAD, KANPUR, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22' SEP TEMBER 2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -II, KANPUR IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) II/19/ITO-3(3)/KNP/12-13 IN RELAT ION TO THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 1. THAT THE CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.54,16,984/- U/S 41(L) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2 2. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT ADDITION U/S 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 CAN BE MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THERE WAS CES SATION OF LIABILITY. 3. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE MECHANICALLY AP PLIED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1), OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE B ASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING BALANCE SHOWN BY THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUN T SUBMITTED BY THREE PARTIES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE DIFFERE NCE EXISTED IN THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1ST APRIL 2009 AND THERE WAS NO CESSATION OF LIABILITY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2 010-11. 4. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN LAW AND IN F ACTS IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.54, 16,984 U/S 41(L) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS NO CESSA TION OF LIABILITY QUA THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,8607- OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIME D ON ACCOUNT OF 'DIWALI GIFTS'. 6. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AN D IN FACTS IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,0007- OUT OF EXPENSE CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF 'REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE' 7. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CONTRARY TO FACTS, LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURE JUSTICE. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING ON SE VERAL OCCASIONS AND ON THESE DATES, SHRI VIKAS GARG, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPE ARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND ON HIS REQUEST, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED. ON L AST OCCASION I.E. 29.07.2015, SHRI YOGESH AGARWAL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF SHRI VIKA S GARG AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND HEARING WAS ADJOURNED ON HIS REQUES T TO 22.09.2015 AND THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NOTED BY HIM FOR COMMUNICATING TO SH RI VIKAS GARG. ON THIS DATE, I.E. 22.09.2015, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE PROCEED TO HEAR THIS APPEAL EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3 4. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DR OF T HE REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. AS PER GRO UNDS NO.1 TO 4, THE ONLY ISSUE IS REGARDING ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.54,16,984/- U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT ON THIS ISSUE, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE S UBMISSIONS OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE ALSO OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM TH E AO AND IN THE REMAND REPORT REGARDING M/S ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD. SH OWING OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF RS.36,41,057/-, IT IS REPORTED BY THE AO THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,45,82,599/- HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE , WHEREAS THE PARTY M/S ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD. HAD SHOWN OF RS.2,34 ,60,499/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THUS THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF RS.11,22,1 00/- AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES RELATING TO SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE. 6. REGARDING SECOND PARTY I.E. M/S USHODAYA ENTERPR ISES PVT. LTD. RS.8,92,891/- ALSO, IT IS REPORTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT IN T HIS CASE ALSO, AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,35,151,00/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE HA S NOT BEEN CREDITED IN THE PARTY LEDGER AND SIMILARLY PAYMENT OF RS.1,68,759/- ACCOU NTED FOR IN THE PARTY LEDGER BUT NOT RECEIVED ADVICE AND UNRECORDED IN THE LEDGER OF THE ASSESSEE IN CREDIT SIDE AND ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS/EVI DENCES RELATING TO SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE AND ALSO DID NOT EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE. SIMILARLY, FOR THIRD PARTY M/S SAHARA INDIA TV NETW ORK RS.8,83,036/- ALSO, DIFFERENCES AS PER THE ASSESSEE AND PARTYS LEDGER COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GRO UNDS NO. 1 TO 4 ARE REJECTED. 7. AS PER GROUNDS NO. 5 AND 6, THE DISPUTE IS REGAR DING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16,860/- OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF D IWALI GIFTS AND RS.10,000/- OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS AND MAINT ENANCE. REGARDING THESE TWO 4 DISALLOWANCES, AO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENC ES. HE ALSO NOTED THAT FROM THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED, IT WAS FOUND THAT IN MOST OF THE CASES, PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS WERE HANDMADE AND NOT OPEN FOR VERIFICATION. WITH THESE REASONING, THE AO MADE SOM E TOKEN DISALLOWANCE AND CONSIDERING THESE FACTS THAT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT OPEN FOR VERIFICATION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS ARE ALSO REJECTED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 14/10/2015 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR