N.Sivakumar, Trichy V. ITO, Trichy

ITA 1169/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95957 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENAKSHISUNDARAM ITP
• Section: 143(3); 154; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, C HENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JU DICIAL MEMBER I . T . A . NO. 11 69 / MDS/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SHRI N. SIVAKUMAR, NO. 27, CHANDRA NAGAR, SRIRANGAM, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. [PAN : A PYPS5723H ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD I( 4 ), TIRUCHIRAPALLI . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, ITP / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 05 . 0 8 .201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 . 0 8 .201 5 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDI CIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , TIRUCHIRAPALLI , DATED 04 . 02 .201 5 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN IN DIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF .4,48,216/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 2 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED. AFTER DUE PROCESS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .15,25,064/ - BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. I.T.A. NO. 11 69 /M/ 15 2 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS , AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL : I. DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR CHARGES . 7,62,293 / - II. DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASE CLAIMED .1,56,488/ - III. DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES CLAIMED .34,734/ - IV. INADEQUATE DRAWINGS - .48,000/ - . 7. WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANC E OF LABOUR CHARGES, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE EXPENSES ARE MOSTLY COVERED BY SELF - VOUCHERS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYEE WAS NOT ASCERTAINABLE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 5% OF THE EXPENSES, WHICH WAS NOT BEING FULLY SUBSTANTIATED. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT TO HAVE CONTROL ON THE LABOUR EXPENSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED 5% OF THE LABOUR CHARGES AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE US, THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE I.T.A. NO. 11 69 /M/ 15 3 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE EXPENSES ARE MOSTLY COVERED BY SELF - MADE VOUCHERS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYEE COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING 5% OF THE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO .7,62,293/ - . 8. SO FAR AS ADDITION IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF MATERIALS IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT WHILE VERIFYING PURCHASE BILLS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE PURCHASE BILLS TO THE EXTENT OF .1,56,488/ - BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BILLS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE PURCHASE BILL, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MAD E AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY BILL EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 9. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF .68,468/ - UNDER REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL EXCEPT STATING THAT THE CLAIM IS SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO S UBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR OPINION THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 50% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO. 11 69 /M/ 15 4 10. SO FA R AS ADDITION WITH REGARD TO INADEQUATE DRAWINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF .48,000/ - CONSIDERING THE FAMILY SIZE AND REQUIREMENT WHICH WAS AGREED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AGREED FOR THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BASED ON THE ADMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH AUGUST , 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 28 .0 8 .2 01 5 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.