Surendra Kumar Tewari, Kanpur V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 117/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5663 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JAIN SHRI SWARAN SINGH
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

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.117/LKW/2012 A.Y.:2005 - 2006 SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR TEWARI, 61, PANCHWATI, VINAYAKPUR, KANPUR. PAN:AATPT5367L VS. CIT(A) - II, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. K. JAIN, ADVOCATE SHRI SWARAN SINGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 31/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /02/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A) - II, KANPUR DATED 26/12/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVEN GROUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 2,4,5,6 & 7. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND NO. 1 AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,96,142/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT ON PURCHASE OF CEMENT. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO FREIGHT CHARGES WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN FACT , FREIGHT WAS PAID BY M/S DEVENDRA & COMPANY AND REALIZED THE SAME FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED ON THIS ACCOUNT . 2 5. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT WHEN A QUERY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 05/01/2007, IN REPLY DATED 18/01/2007, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GOODS ARE SENT BY ACC LIMITED AND NO EXPENDITURE I S INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DIRECT ENQUIRY FROM ACC LTD. AND THAT COMPANY, AS PER LETTER DATED 22/03/2007, STATED THAT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ARE PAID BY THE DEALER/RETAILER AND IN THIS CASE M/S DEVENDRA & COMPANY PA ID TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FOR THE PRESENT YEAR. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE REPLY OF ACC LTD. AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE INWARD FREIGHT PAID ON PURCHASE MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PAYMENT MADE OUTS IDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY AND THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY STATED THAT THEY HAVE LET OUT THIS ACTIVITY AND DID NOT PAY ANY AMOUNT O F FREIGHT. NEITHER BEFORE ANY AUTHORITIES BELOW NOR BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY TO WHOM THE TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITY WAS LET OUT AND HOW THAT PARTY REALIZED ITS COST AND WHAT IS THE ARRANGEMENT WITH THAT PARTY OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,986/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN EARNING COMMISSION FROM LIC. 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE IS EXCESSIVE. 9. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUB MISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED COMMISSION FROM LIC AMOUNTING TO RS.68,568/ - AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AND DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THE EXPENSES UN DER DIFFERENT HEADS AMOUNTING TO RS.30,000/ - . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE EXPENSES ALLOWABLE IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS ONLY RS.12,014/ - AND IN THIS MANNER , HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17,986/ - OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.30,000/ - . A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED BY A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE US, NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (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 MEMBER DATED: 2 8 T H FEBRUARY, 2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORD ER 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