Vijay Siddhraj Bashte, Ratnagiri V. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1127/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 112724514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 206AA; 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1127/PN/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SHRI VIJAY SIDDHRAJ BASHTE, C/O. YOGESH TRANSPORT COMPANY, 774, UDYAMNAGAR, RATNAGIRI 415612 PAN NO. ABAPB5121C .. APPELLANT VS. ADDL.CIT, RATNAGIRI RANGE, RATNAGIRI. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR DATE OF HEARING : 07-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-08-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 19-03-2014 OF THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS.28,05,995/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) WAS JUSTIFIED SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FUR NISHED INCORRECT PAN OF THE DEDUCTEES AND THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED TDS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORT CHARGES PAID OF RS.28,05,995/-. 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE CORRECT PANS OF THE DEDUCTEES IN THE CO URSE OF ASST. PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.28,05,99 5/- U/S. 194C AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE, U/S 40(A)(IA) SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 104C AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS ON THE TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS. 28,05,995/- AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MAD E SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED. 2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT CONTRAC TOR/TRANSPORTER. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19-04-2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.13,53,520/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.3 ,41,32,614/- BESIDES HIRING CHARGES AND UNLOADING CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.2,65,14,217/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT DEDUCTED TDS HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE OWNERS AS WELL AS TRANSPORT OPERATORS HAD SUBMITTED THEIR PAN NOS. AND THEREFORE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C (6) TDS WAS NOT REQU IRED TO BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE FILED PARTY-WISE LIST OF DETAILS OF TR UCK OWNERS, ADDRESSES, TRUCK NOS. PAN NOS. AND AMOUNTS PAID. FROM THE VAR IOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TED THAT IN A NUMBER OF CASES THE PAN NOS. MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NO T CORRECT. HE OBSERVED THAT IN SOME CASES PAN NOS. HAD BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION AND IN A CASUAL MANNER BY OFFERING EIT HER WRONG PAN NOS. OR WRONG NAME. 3 2.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, GAVE AN OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LIST FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN REPRODUCED AT PAGES 4 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ANOMOLY NOTICED. IT WAS REPLIED THAT IN SOME CASES BY MISTAKE WRONG PAN ARE TYPED. IN SOME CASES, THE VEHICLE WAS TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PERSON WHO OPERATES THE VEHICLE BUT HIS NAME IN THE RC RECORD WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY CHANGED AND SUCH TRANSPORT OPERATOR HAS FURNISHED HIS PAN. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CORRECT PANOS. ALONG WIT H HIS REPLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT EVEN NOW IN RESPECT OF SOME PANOS. THE SAME WERE NOT FURNISHED CORRECTLY AND ALSO THE EXPL ANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN SHOW CAUSED AND WAS INFORMED THAT SINCE HE HAS FURNISHED WRONG PAN IN THE INITIAL SUBMISSIO N IT WAS PRESUMED THAT CORRECT PAN OF THE PARTIES WERE NOT OBTAINED A ND CORRECT PAN SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THEREFORE, P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(6) WERE NOT COMPLIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO POINTED OUT THAT AS PER RULE 31 A(4) THE DEDUCTOR AT THE TIME OF PREPAR ING STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED, SHALL FURNISH PARTICULARS OF AMOUNT PAID OR CREDITED ON WHICH TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED. FURTHER, AS PER SECTION 206AA (6) WHERE THE PAN PROVIDED TO THE DEDUCTOR IS INVALID OR DOES NOT BEL ONG TO THE DEDUCTEE, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE DEDUCTEE HAS NOT FURNISHED HIS PAN TO THE DEDUCTOR. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONED THAT IN RESPECT OF PERSONS FROM WHOM TDS WAS NOT MADE, FORM NOS. 151 AND 15J W ERE OBTAINED AND SUBMITTED WITH CIT-II, KOLHAPUR. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ENQUIRED FROM THE OFFICE OF CIT-II AND FOUND THAT FORMS SUBMITTED WIT H THE CIT-II WERE THOSE CONTAINING INACCURATE PAN AND, THEREFORE, IN EFFECT, THE FORMS WERE NOT SUBMITTED. ON THESE FACTS, ASSESSING OFFICER IN FERRED THAT SINCE THE 4 FORMS WERE NOT SUBMITTED PROPERLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO MAKE TDS FROM PAYMENT AND HAVING FAILED TO DO SO, THE AMOUNT OF THIS PAYMENT IS DISALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA). OUT OF THE LI ST FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN DEFECTIVE CASES WA S RS.28,05,995/- WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISA LLOWANCES MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) WAS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A DECLARATION IN FORM 15I FROM TRUCK COMPANY AND TH AT MISTAKES IN PAN OR SPELLING OF DEDUCTEE WERE MAINLY TECHNICAL IN NA TURE. 3.1 HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C BY MAKING TDS FROM THE PAYMENTS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE INFORMATION SUBMIT TED TO CIT-II CONTAIN INCORRECT PAN NOS. IN OTHER CASES AND AS PER SECTI ON 206AA(6) WHERE THE PAN NOS. IS INCORRECT, IT IS DEEMED THAT PAN HA S NOT BEEN FURNISHED. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF WRONG PAN N OS. THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE NOT SUBMITTED FORM NO.15 TO THE CIT AND THEREFORE, HE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE I.T. ACT. 3.2 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) . HE SUBMITTED THAT 5 SUBSEQUENT TO NOTICING THE INCORRECT PAN NOS., THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS OF CORRECT PAN NOS. OF ALL THE RECIPIENTS B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED T HE PAN NOS. IN RESPECT OF PERSONS WHERE WRONG SPELLING OF PAN MENT IONED DUE TO CLERICAL MISTAKES, CHANGE IN NAME DUE TO MARRIAGE A ND WRONG SPELLING OF NAME IS MENTIONED DUE TO CLERICAL MISTAKES, HE, HOW EVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE RECTIFIED PAN NOS. GIVEN IN CASE OF 16 PERSONS OUT OF THE 17 PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE LIST AT PAGE 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INCORRECT PAN NUMBER IN THE RECTIFIED STATEMENT ONLY IN THE CASE OF SHRI BALBIR FARMAN SI NGH AND THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS RS.82,170/-. THEREFORE, AT BEST, ONLY RS.82,170/- CAN BE DISALLOWED AND NOT THE AMOUNT OF RS.28,05,995/-. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN A VERY CASUAL APPRO ACH, HAD FILED THE DETAILS OF PANS GIVING INCORRECT PAN NOS. FOR WHICH THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLAN ATION AS TO WHY THOSE WERE NOT GIVEN CORRECTLY. REFERRING TO THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS PASSED A VERY REASONED ORDER THAT REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND ON B EING QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE PA RTY-WISE DETAILS OF THE 6 TRUCK OWNERS, ADDRESSES, TRUCK NUMBERS, PAN NUMBERS , AMOUNT PAID ETC., THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE APPEARING AT PARA 3.2 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER (PAGES 4 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). WE FIND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE TRUCK OWNERS FROM THE AST ON ONLINE MAINTAINED AT THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, NOTED T HAT IN A NUMBER OF CASES OF TRANSPORTERS/TRUCK OWNERS, THE PAN NOS. WE RE NOT CORRECT OR THE PAN NUMBERS HAD BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICAT ION AND IN A CASUAL MANNER BY FURNISHING EITHER WRONG PAN NUMBERS OR WR ONG NAMES. WE FIND ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE LIST OF TRUCK OWNERS ALONG WITH PAN NUMBERS AND OTHER DETAILS. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CATEGORISED SUCH NUMBERS INTO SIX CATEGORIES. HE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON DEDUCT ION OF TDS IN CASE OF PERSONS WHERE WRONG SPELLING OF NAMES WERE MENTIONE D DUE TO CLERICAL MISTAKES, WRONG SPELLING OF PAN MENTIONED DUE TO CL ERICAL MISTAKES AND CHANGE IN NAME DUE TO MARRIAGE. HE, HOWEVER, DID N OT ACCEPT THE LIST GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF PERSONS WHERE PAN NUMBERS OF TRANSPORT OPERATORS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED BUT ORIGINALLY NOT GIVEN CORRECTLY. SIMILARLY, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE WHERE WRONG PAN NUMBERS WERE GIVEN ORIGINALLY AND IN ONE CASE, I.E. IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHISH SHAM TALATHI HE NOTED THAT NEIT HER THE PAN NOR THE NAME WAS INCLUDED IN THE LIST SUBMITTED. 6.1 IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY IN ONE CASE, I.E. SHRI BALBIR FARMAN SINGH, THE PAN NUMBER WAS WRONGLY GIVEN INITIALLY AS WELL AS IN THE RECTIFIED STATEME NT AND THEREFORE ONLY TO 7 THIS EXTENT THE DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S.40(A)( IA). HOWEVER, IN ALL OTHER CASES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED O UT ANY MISTAKE IN THE PAN NUMBERS, THEREFORE, HE CANNOT HAVE TWO SETS OF STANDARDS. 6.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIE D. WHEN HE HAS ACCEPTED THE RECTIFIED PAN NUMBERS IN CASE OF CERTA IN PERSONS DUE TO WRONG SPELLING OF NAMES MENTIONED DUE TO CLERICAL M ISTAKES, WRONG SPELLING OF PAN NUMBERS OR CHANGE IN NAME DUE TO MA RRIAGE, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW HE CAN DENY THE ASSESSEE THE SAME BE NEFIT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD RECTIFIED THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE TRANS PORT OPERATORS SUBSEQUENTLY WHO HAD GIVEN THE WRONG PAN NUMBERS OR IGINALLY. THIS APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN OUR OPINION IS NOT CORRECT. HOWEVER, FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE , WE FIND IN THE CASE OF SHRI BALBIR FARMAN SINGH, PAN NUMBER GIVEN ORIG INALLY AS WELL IN THE RECTIFIED STATEMENT WAS WRONG AND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT PAID TO SHRI BALBIR FARMAN SINGH AMOUNTING TO RS.82,170/- HAS TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA) FOR NOT GIVING THE CORRECT PAN NUMBER . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE AT RS.28,05,995/- IS RESTRICTED TO RS.82,170/- . THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.5 TO 7 BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.1.1,32,445/- U/S 40A(2)(B) IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPO RT CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS RELATIVES. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD PAID EXCESSIVE TRANSPORT CHARGES TO HIS RELATIVES AND THEREFOR E, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. @ 15% OF TOTAL TRANSPOR T CHARGES PAID TO THE RELATIVES WAS JUSTIFIED. 8 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID ANY EXCESSIVE TRANSPORT CHARGES TO HIS RELATIV ES AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON AN ADHOC BASIS SH OULD BE DELETED. 7.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TOWARDS TRANSPORT CHARGES TO VARIOUS PERSO NS COVERED U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE A COMPARATIVE CHART OF TRANSPO RTATION CHARGES PAID TO THIRD PARTIES, VIS-A-VIS TO THE RELATED PERSONS. T HE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID TO OTHERS, V IS-A-VIS THE RELATED PARTIES. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TRANSPORTA TION CHARGES OF RS.1,93,49,440/- TO OUTSIDE PARTIES AND RS.75,49,63 3/- TO PARTIES COVERED U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE PAYMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO RELATED PARTIES WAS TO THE EXTENT OF 28. 12% AND THE SAME WERE PAID TO DILIP S. BASHTE (BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE) S HRI PRASAD BASHTE AND KUNAAL BASHTE (SONS OF THE ASSESSEE) AND MRS. MADHU RA BASHTE (WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE). TO ASCERTAIN THE REASONABLENESS OF THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID TO THE RELATED PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE DETAILS OF RATE PAID TO THE TH IRD PARTIES, VIS-A-VIS TO PERSONS COVERED U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN A BSENCE OF ANY DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD T HAT THIS IS NOTHING BUT BIFURCATION OF SEGREGATION OF INCOME IN DIFFERENT H ANDS TO AVOID PROPER PAYMENT OF TAX. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT NONE OF THE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS AS SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATI ON THE ASSESSING 9 OFFICER HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS TRANSPO RTATION CHARGES TO THE RELATED PARTIES COVERED U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE AC T IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE IN AS MUCH AS UNREASONABLE AND IN CONTRAVENTION TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOW ED 15% OF SUCH PAYMENTS MADE TO THE AFORESAID PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS.11,32,445/- AS EXCESS AND UNREASONABLE PAYMENT NOT PERTAINING TO T HE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 8. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 14. ON THESE FACTS IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT F URNISHED DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO FAMILY MEMBERS TRIP WISE AND ALSO TO O UTSIDE PERSONS TO ESTABLISH THAT RATES PAID TO EACH OF THESE CAT EGORIES ARE COMPARABLE. APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED AT LEAST SO ME SAMPLE CASES OF TRANSPORT JOB DONE BY HIM TO ESTABLISH THAT WHE NEVER THE PAYMENTS TO FAMILY MEMBERS WERE MADE AT HIGHER RATE, THE DESTINATION OF THE DELIVERY WAS DIFFICULT OR AT REMOTE PLACES. HE NCE, APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DATA. THESE DETAILS WERE SPECIFICALLY ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, HE HAS ADMITTED IN THE SUBMISSION MADE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT T HESE DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE. APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON SEVERAL DE CISIONS OF VARIOUS AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, FIRST HE HAS TO ESTABLISH THE CASE WITH FACTUAL FIGURES OF SUPPORTING DATA IN WHICH HE HAS FAILED. TH EREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED A ND THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. 8.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO OUT SIDERS AS WELL AS TO RELATED PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DE TAILS TO JUSTIFY TRIP-WISE PAYMENT PAID TO THE RELATED PARTIES AS CO MPARED TO THE OUTSIDERS 10 AS REASONABLE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT WHENEVER THE PAYMENTS TO FAMILY MEMBERS WERE MADE A T HIGHER RATE THE DESTINATION OF THE DELIVERY WAS DIFFICULT OR AT REM OTE PLACES IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM RECORDS OR WITH ANY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, CO NSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY COMPARATIVE CASE AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 15% OF THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES BEING ON ADHOC BASIS APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE, THEREFORE, WE RESTRICT SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO 7 .5% OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT. THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO R S.5,66,222/- AS AGAINST RS.11,32,445/- DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-08-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 12 TH AUGUST, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT, KOLHAPUR 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE