The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao., Margao V. Shri Shyam Gopinath Satardekar., Curchorem

ITA 110/PAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1247 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JOSEPH L RODRIGUES
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 110 /P A N/201 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 110 /P A N/201 6 (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 1 2 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO GOA. VS. SHRI SHYAM GOPINATH SATARDEKAR, 1 ST FLOOR, PREETI APARTMENTS, STATION ROAD, KHAMAMOL, CURCHOREM, GOA. PAN NO. ALIPS 2966 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD VAIDYA ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI JOSEPH L. RODRIGUES - DR DATE OF HEARING : 23 / 0 8 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 / 0 8 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , PANAJI - 1 IN APPEAL NO. 81/PNJ/2014 - 15 , DATED 0 8 /0 3 /201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . 2. SHRI JOSEPH L. RODRIGUES, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI PRAMOD VAIDYA, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE REV E NUES APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS 2 ITA NO. 110 /P A N/201 6 THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRANSPORTER OF IRON - ORE AND HIRING OUT O F THE MACHINERY . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CASH IN EXCESS OF 20,000/ - FOR PURCHASE OF DIESEL & LUBRICANTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED ALL PAYMENTS MADE IN EXCESS OF 20,000/ - , IN CASH , IN RESPECT OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT S OF FOUR SEPARATE CONCERNS , WHICH B E L O N G E D T O THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER VERIFYIN G THE LEDGERS HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO CASH PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF 20,000/ - HAS B E EN MADE BY ANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 4 . IN REPLY, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE US THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE FOUR CONCERNS BEING I) SHYAM SATARDEKAR II) SGS ENTERPRISES III) C & PURCHASE TRADING AND IV) C.S. ENTERPRISES . A PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SAID FOUR CONCERNS SHOWS THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME , A N Y O F THE CONCERNS HAVE MADE ANY CASH PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF 20,000/ - IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF DIESEL & LUBRICANTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUS A L OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MORE SPECIFICALLY AT PAGE 11 IN PARA 6.5 SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO GONE THROUGH THE LEDGER EXTRA CTS AND HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE BOOKS ARE MAINTAINED ON DAILY BASIS. IT IS AFTER VERIFYING THESE LEDGER EXTRACTS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE A FTER RECORDING A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THERE IS NO CASH PAYMENT I N EXCESS OF 20,000/ - IN RESPECT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL CONCERN. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW FROM THE LEDGER EXTRACTS THAT ANY OF THE CONCERNS HAVE PAID CASH IN EXCESS OF 20,000/ - FOR 3 ITA NO. 110 /P A N/201 6 PURCHASE OF DIESEL & LUBRICANTS. THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LEDGER OF ALL THE CONCERNS MUST BE LOOKED AT COMBINED IS NOT PERMISSIBLE INSOFAR AS EACH CONCERN IS SEPARATE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS ON RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON TUESDAY , THE 23 RD DAY OF AUGUST , 201 6 AT GOA . (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23 RD AUGUST , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. SHRI SHYAM GOPINATH SATARDEKAR, 1 ST FLOOR, PREETI APARTMENTS, STATION ROAD, KHAMAMOL, CURCHOREM, GOA. 2 . THE REVENUE. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO GOA. 3 . THE PR. CIT , PANAJI - GOA . 4 . THE CIT(A) , PANAJI - 1, GOA. 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI