M/s Vikas Traders, Sitapur V. Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

ITA 118/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4447 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.118/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR VS M/S VIKAS TRADERS C/O AYUBIS CHAMBER HPO ROAD, NEAR EYE HOSPITAL, SITAPUR PAN AADFV 3386 M (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI SUBHAM RASTOGI , CA APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 05/04/2016 DATE OF HEARING 07/04/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A), BAREILLY DATED 20.01.2016 FOR THE AY 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: THAT THE LEARNED COURTS BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED I N DISALLOWING RS. 7,135/- OUT OF INSURANCE EXPENSES. THAT THE LEARNED COURTS BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS. 70,000/- OUT OF FUEL & LUBRICANTS. THAT THE LEARNED COURTS BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS. 50,000/- OUT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES. 2 THAT THE LEARNED COURTS BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS.50,000/- OUT OF MACHINE RUNNING & MAINTENANCE. THAT THE LEARNED COURTS BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS.15,000/- OUT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENS ES. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVING PROPER BENEFIT OF PREPAID TAXES. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS B AD IN LAW AS NO TAX HAS BEEN QUANTIFIED IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ' LEGAL AND FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT GROUND NO.1 IS NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. REGARDING REMAINING GROUNDS, HE SUBMITTED THAT A DHOC DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WI THOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT AND THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) A RE NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. 5. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 3 7. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 I.E. IN RESPECT OF DISALL OWANCE OF RS.70,000/- OUT OF FUEL & LUBRICANTS EXPENSES CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.19,10,298/-, IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE VOUCHERS TO THE TU NE OF RS.70,000/- ARE NOT VERIFIABLE AS THESE ARE EITHER SELF MADE OR NOT ON PROPER BILL. AFTER MAKING THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.70,000/-. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.70,000/- OUT OF FUEL AND LUBRICANTS EXPENSES IS NOT ADHOC DISALLOWA NCE BUT THIS IS A SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH VOUCHERS ARE NOT PROPER. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE PROPER S UPPORTING BILLS/VOUCHERS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFO RE ME AND SINCE THIS IS A SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCE, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERF ERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 O F THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 8. REMAINING THREE DISALLOWANCES ARE OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES, RS.50,000/- OUT OF MACHINE RUNNING & MAIN TENANCE AND RS.15,000/- OUT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. IT IS SE EN THAT THESE THREE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ADHOC BASIS BY OBSERVING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SOME EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND THERE ARE SELF MADE VOUCHERS ONLY AND ON T HIS BASIS, HE MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WHICH IS ABOUT 20% OF THE EXPENS ES CLAIMED UNDER EACH OF THESE THREE HEADS. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DID NOT POINT OUT EVEN ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF A VOUCHER WHICH IS NO T VERIFIABLE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUCH ADHOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, I DELETE THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND N OS. 3,4 AND 5 IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF FREIG HT EXPENSES, 4 RS.50,000/- OUT OF MACHINE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE AND RS.15,000/- OUT OF MISC. EXPENSES ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- (A.K. GARODIA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 07/04/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER 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