York Polymers, Chandigarh V. ACIT, C-2(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1100/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5333 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1100/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEA R : 2010-11 SHRI PRITHI CHAND, VS. THE ITO, S/O SHRI DHANNU RAM, MANDI (HP). VPO DOHAG, TEHSIL-JOGINDER NAGAR, DISTT.MANDI (HP). PAN NO. AJHPB5616P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01.2018 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2016 OF LD. CIT (APP EALS) PALAMPUR PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PALAMPUR IS A GAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS SHE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARB ITRARILY UPHOLD DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,75,000/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER B Y RESORT TO PROVISIONS U/S 40A(IA). 2. THAT SHE WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD A DISA LLOWANCE OF RS. 6,74,972/- OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE ALL EGED GROUND THAT THE SAME ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144. 2. ADDRESSING THE ISSUE AGITATED IN GROUND NO. 1, THE LD. A R INVITING ATTENTION TO PAGE 12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED TH AT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE REAS ONING THAT CERTIFICATE IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE PAYE E WAS AN EXISTING ASSESSEE WHO HAD DECLARED THE INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INC OME FILED, COULD NOT BE PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, THE SAID CERTIFICATE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. ACCORDINGLY, IT W AS HIS PRAYER THAT SINCE IT IS NOW AVAILABLE, THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED IN T HE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR WHICH PURPOSES, FOR VERIFICATION IF NEED BE, THE IS SUE MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. LD. SR.DR CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE FILED HAD NO OBJECTION IF IT IS VERIFIED BY THE AO. ITA 1100/CHD/2016 A.Y 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN CA RRYING OUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS AND BUILDING IN THE AREA OF JOGINDER NAGAR, DISTT. MANDI. IN REGARD TO THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR JCB CHARGES , IT WAS NOTED THAT TDS HAD NOT BEEN DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH APPE ALED AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION, HOWEVER, COULD NOT FILE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE EVIDENCE IS NOW AVAILABLE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE EV IDENCE NOW SOUGHT TO BE PLACED ON RECORD IS DIRECTED TO BE CONSIDERED. TH E CLAIM THAT THE PAYEE TO WHOM CHARGES WERE PAID HAS RETURNED THE SAID INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AS SUCH THE ADDITION ON FACTS MAY NOT BE FASTENED UPON THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO DEMONSTRATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY. ACCORDIN GLY, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. QUA THE ISSUE AGITATED IN THE SECOND GROUND, LD. AR SU BMITTED THAT NEVER IN THE PAST, SUCH AN ADDITION ON SAME FACTS HAS BE EN MADE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IT MAY BE DELETED. 5. THE LD. SR.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT PERS ONAL USAGE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AD DITION HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL TO 1/5 TH AS AGAINST 1/10 TH MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. AR PLEADED THAT IT IS STILL ON THE HIGHER SIDE AND IF IT HAS TO BE SUSTAINED, THEN IT MAY BE REDUCED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH, IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO RES TRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 1/15 TH OUT OF THE TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE SAID ESTIMATE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.01. 2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT/CHANDIGARH